PEDESTRIAN TECHNICAL GUIDELINES

PEDESTRIAN TECHNICAL GUIDELINES A GUIDE TO PLANNING AND DESIGN FOR LOCAL AGENCIES IN SANTA CLARA COUNTY

Prepared for The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority by Community Design + Architecture, Inc. October 2, 2003

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .V LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .IX EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: WALKABILITY CONCEPTS AND CHECKLIST . . . . . . .XI 1. PLANNING FOR PEDESTRIANS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.01 1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.01 1.1.1 Community Design & Transportation and The Pedestrian Technical Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.02

1.2 Implementing the Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.03 1.2.1 Pedestrian Planning Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.04 A. Pedestrian Master Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.04 B “Spot” Planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.05 1.2.2 Change From Within . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.06 A. General Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.06 B. Creating and Modifying Specific Plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.07 C. Pedestrian-Supportive Zoning Codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.07 D. Design Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.08 1.2.3 Funding to Support Pedestrian Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.08 A. City Commitments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.08 B. VTA Fund Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.09 C. Other Fund Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.09 1.2.4 Outreach and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.10 A. Promoting Pedestrian-Supportive Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.10 B. Promoting Harmonious Street Interactions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.11

1.3 How to Read the PTG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.12 A. B. C. D. E. F.

Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.13 New Development vs. Retrofitting and Conversions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.13 Relation to Transit Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.13 Urban, Suburban and Rural Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.14 Implementation and Relation to Current Standards and Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.14 Maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.15

1.4 Accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.15 A. B. C. D. E. F. G.

Grades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.16 Walkways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.16 Ramps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.17 Curb Cut Ramps at Intersections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.18 Driveway Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.19 Textural, Audible, Vibrating and Visual Cues at Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.19 Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.19 Table of Contents

i

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

2. MULTI-USE STREET AND PEDESTRIAN REALM DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.01 2.1 Sidewalk Design

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.01

A. Determining a Width - Establishing “Zones” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.03 B. Grades, Cross Slope, and Curb Cuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.05 C. Surfacing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.05

2.2 Matching Sidewalks with Model Street Types

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.08

A. Neighborhood Street Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.09 B. District/Downtown Street Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.10 C. Corridor Street Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.13

2.3 Making Trade-offs - Using a “Road Diet” to Create Additional Right-of-Way . . . . . . . .2.17 2.4 Other Multi-Use Street Guidelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.18 A. B. C. D.

Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Maintaining a Safe Coexistence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.18 On-Street Parking Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.19 Site Access Controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.20 Stormwater Management Facilities - “Green Streets” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.21

2.5 Traffic Calming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.22

3. STREET CROSSINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.01 3.1 Intersection Design and Operation A. B. C. D. E.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.01

Turning Radii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.03 Sight Distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.05 Striping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.06 Traffic Signal Devices and Signage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.07 Modern Roundabouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.10

3.2 Pedestrian Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.14 A. B. C. D. E. F. G.

Marked Crosswalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.15 Pedestrian Bulbouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.19 Installation of Midblock Crosswalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.20 Pedestrian Refuge Islands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.23 Roadway Overpasses and Underpasses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.25 Highway On/Off Ramps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.27 Grade Separated Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.28

4. CREATING A PEDESTRIAN REALM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.01 4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.01 4.2 Pedestrian Amenities and Comfort

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.02

A. Sidewalk Amenities/Seating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.02 B. Lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.04 C. Landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.08

ii

Table of Contents

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

4.3 Placemaking and Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.12 A. Signage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.12 B. Public Art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.13

4.4 Creating Non-Roadway Connections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.14 A. Pathways/Accessways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.16 B. Stairways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.17

4.5 Areas of Special Consideration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.18 A. Children and School Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.18 B. Senior Centers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.21 C. Safety in Work Zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.21

5. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO TRANSIT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.01 5.1 Bus Stop Design and Access

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.01

5.2 LRT Station Design and Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.01 5.3 Pedestrian Crossings of LRT Tracks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.04

6. SITE AND BUILDING DESIGN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.01 6.1 Building Design and Site Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.01 A. B. C. D.

Pedestrian Site Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.01 Creating Active Frontages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.01 Designing for the Climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.04 Vacant Lots and Buildings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.05

6.2 Parking Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.05 A. B. C. D. E.

Parking Policy and Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.05 Internal Pedestrian Circulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.07 Driveway Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.08 Parking Lot Landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.08 Screening . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.09

6.3 Public Open Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.10

APPENDICES 1.

2.

3.

4.

Pedestrian Level of Service – Example of LOS Methodologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A.01 Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A.09 Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A.13 Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .A.15

Table of Contents

iii

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

iv

Table of Contents

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

LIST OF FIGURES CHAPTER 1 Figure 1.1: Figure 1.2: Figure 1.3: Figure 1.4: Figure 1.5: Figure 1.6: Figure 1.7: Figure 1.8: Figure 1.9: Figure 1.10: Figure 1.11: Figure 1.12: Figure 1.13: Figure 1.14: Figure 1.15: Figure 1.16: Figure 1.17: Figure 1.18: Figure 1.19: Figure 1.20: Figure 1.21: Figure 1.22: Figure 1.23: Figure 1.24: Figure 1.25: Figure 1.26: Figure 1.27: Figure 1.28: Figure 1.29: Figure 1.30: Figure 1.31: Figure 1.32: Figure 1.33:

A place with generous provisions for pedestrians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.01 An uncomfortable pedestrian environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.01 A street designed with the pedestrian in mind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.02 Bus shelter as part of the street. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.02 Enhancing mobility for all who share the street right-of-way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.03 Comfortable crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.03 An urban area enhanced by safe and attractive places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.04 A Pedestrian Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.04 A Pedestrian Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.04 San Jose’s Guadalupe River Park and Gardens Master Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.05 Pedestrian infrastructure included in private developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.05 A thoughtful treatment of parking and its interface with the pedestrian realm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.06 Pedestrian supportive policies and programs reflected in a General Plan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.06 A Specific Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.07 A Zoning Code . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.07 Street and sidewalk standards may need changes to improve the pedestrian environment. . . . . . .1.08 Public- and private-sector involvement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.08 Public investment in infrastructure as functional public art . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.09 Advertising campaigns can encourage driver behavioral change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.11 Pedestrian crossing with accessible features . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.12 Treatments retrofitted into existing rights-of-way. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.13 Treatment provisions necessary at the time that new land uses are proposed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.13 A pedestrian facility turning transit into a prominent community feature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.13 High-density residences above ground-floor retail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.14 Recommended features in suburban locations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.14 The special needs of disabled pedestrians should be taken into account. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.15 Accessible Passing Area diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.16 Accessibility requirements at bus stops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.17 Typical Curb Ramp Placements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.18 Preferred driveway condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.18 “Dropped driveway” for constrained width situations only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.18 Tactile Warning Strips . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.19 Tactile Wayfinding Strip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1.19

CHAPTER 2 Figure 2.1: Figure 2.2: Figure 2.3: Figure 2.4: Figure 2.5: Figure 2.6: Figure 2.7: Figure 2.8: Figure 2.9: Figure 2.10:

Sidewalks as an environment for lingering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.01 Sidewalks can enhance private space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.01 An attractive sidewalk in downtown Campbell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.02 Transit stops incorporated into the design of the sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.02 Pedestrian sidewalk zones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.03 A “well-zoned” sidewalk.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.03 Special paving for multi-use on-street parking stalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.04 A jogged Throughway Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.05 Preferred driveway condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.05 “Dropped driveway” for constrained width situations only . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.05

List of Figures

v

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Figure 2.11: Figure 2.12: Figure 2.13: Figure 2.14: Figure 2.15: Figure 2.16: Figure 2.17: Figure 2.18: Figure 2.19: Figure 2.20: Figure 2.21: Figure 2.22: Figure 2.23: Figure 2.24: Figure 2.25: Figure 2.26: Figure 2.27: Figure 2.28: Figure 2.29: Figure 2.30: Figure 2.31: Figure 2.32: Figure 2.33: Figure 2.34: Figure 2.35: Figure 2.36: Figure 2.37: Figure 2.38: Figure 2.39: Figure 2.40: Figure 2.41: Figure 2.42: Figure 2.43:

Scored, colored concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.06 A “wandering” sidewalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.06 A rolled curb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.07 A multi-modal street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.08 Pedestrian realm for Major Residential streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.09 Pedestrian Realm for Minor Residential streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.09 Pedestrian Realm for Mixed-Use Streets (2-lane configuration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.10 Pedestrian Realm for Mixed-Use Streets (transit configuration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.10 Pedestrian Realm for Main Streets (2-lane configuration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.11 Pedestrian Realm for Main Streets (transit and 4-lane configuration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.11 Pedestrian Realm for Industrial/R&D Office Streets (with on-street parking) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.12 Pedestrian Realm for Industrial/R&D Office Streets (no on-street parking) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.12 Pedestrian Realm for Community Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.13 Pedestrian Realm for Community Streets (transit configuration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.13 Pedestrian Realm for Regional Streets (transit configuration) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.14 Pedestrian Realm for Multi-Way Boulevards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.14 Pedestrian Realm for Commercial Streets (with on-street parking) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.15 Pedestrian Realm for Commercial Streets (no on-street parking) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.15 Pedestrian Realm for Urban Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.16 Excess travel lane width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.17 Increasing pedestrian facilities within an existing right-of-way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.17 Bike racks provide convenient bike parking while preserving a wide pedestrian thoroughway. . . .2.18 Sepatating bicyclists from pedestrians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 2.18 Where paths are shared, bicyclists can temporarily become pedestrians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.18 Striping gives bicyclists their own space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.19 On-street parking enhances walking environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.19 Excessive curb cuts and driveways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.20 Conventional parking and access configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.20 Preferred parking and access configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.20 A driveway curb conveying to the driver that the vehicle is crossing through pedestrian space. . . .2.21 Pedestrian access integrated into a “Green Streets” strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.21 A traffic calming slow-point . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.22 A traffic calming circle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.23

CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.1: Figure 3.2: Figure 3.3: Figure 3.4: Figure 3.5: Figure 3.6: Figure 3.7: Figure 3.8: Figure 3.9: Figure 3.10: Figure 3.11: Figure 3.12: Figure 3.13: Figure 3.14: Figure 3.15: vi

Bulbouts provide additional pedestrian space and reduce crossing distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.01 Elements that make for a pedestrian-friendly intersection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.01 An uncomfortable, wide intersection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.02 Effect of turning radii on crossing distance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.03 This bulbout devotes space to pedestrians but is also mountable by fire equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.04 Preferred parking setback for sight distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.05 Bulbout pulling pedestrians’ sight line away from obstructions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.06 Example of advance stop bar pavement striping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.06 Example of pavement striping defining travel lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.07 Sign giving advance warning of a pedestrian crossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.07 Pedestrian Devices at Signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.08 Pedestrian activated in-pavement lights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.09 Pedestrian activated in-pavement lights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.09 Right turn on red prohibitions eliminate the conflict with crossing pedestrians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.09 “Share the Road” signage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.10

List of Figures

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Figure 3.16: Figure 3.17: Figure 3.18: Figure 3.19: Figure 3.20: Figure 3.21: Figure 3.22: Figure 3.23: Figure 3.24: Figure 3.25: Figure 3.26: Figure 3.27: Figure 3.28: Figure 3.29: Figure 3.30 Figure 3.31: Figure 3.32: Figure 3.33: Figure 3.34: Figure 3.35: Figure 3.36: Figure 3.37: Figure 3.38: Figure 3.39: Figure 3.40: Figure 3.41: Figure 3.42: Figure 3.43: Figure 3.44:

Example of a Modern Roundabout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.10 Vehicle/Pedestrian conflict points in a signalized intersection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.11 Vehicle/Pedestrian conflict points for a Modern Roundabout configuration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.11 Design of the splitter island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.12 Sidewalk configuration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.12 Crossing restrictions present a significant barrier to pedestrian accessibility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.14 Typical crosswalk striping patterns . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.15 Special paving distinguishes crosswalk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.16 Guidelines for Installation of Marked Crosswalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.17 Pedestrian bulbout types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.19 Street drainage at bulbout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.20 Example of pedestrian bulbout in Santa Clara County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.20 A bulbout as a small public space. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.20 A bulbout at a midblock crossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.21 Hazards created when crosswalks are not located where pedestrians need them. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.21 Hazards created when crosswalks are not located where pedestrians need them. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.21 A midblock crossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.22 Example of a midblock crossing in Willow Glen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.22 A pedestrian refuge island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.23 Midblock, “corral-style” pedestrian crossing and island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.23 A refuge island within a median . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.24 A right-turn channelization island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.24 A missed opportunity for a pedestrian refuge island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.25 An overpass inluding separate pedestrian zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.25 A creek bridge not allowing safe pedestrian crossing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.26 Tighter turning radii at a freeway off-ramp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.27 A highway off-ramp meets signalized intersection with crosswalks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.27 Pedestrians and bicycle bridge in downtown Mountain View . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.28 Example of a bike/ped creek crossing in Menlo Park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.28

CHAPTER 4 Figure 4.1: Figure 4.2: Figure 4.3: Figure 4.4: Figure 4.5: Figure 4.6: Figure 4.7: Figure 4.8: Figure 4.9: Figure 4.10: Figure 4.11: Figure 4.12: Figure 4.13: Figure 4.14: Figure 4.15: Figure 4.16: Figure 4.17: Figure 4.18: Figure 4.19:

A high-quality pedestrian realm requires attention to detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.01 Public seating invites people to linger. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.02 A chessboard can function as street furniture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.02 A consolidated newspaper rack. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.02 Additional space for amenities created by installing a midblock bulbout. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.03 Bench designed into a midblock bulbout . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.03 Low wall serving double duty as both a planter box and public seating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.03 Adequate pedestrian lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.05 Lightpole includes both sasfety lighting and pedestrian-scaled lighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.07 Mature street trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.08 Landscaping and trees working to soften the face of a parking garage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.08 Unattractive “topping” of street trees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.08 Shade trees at transit stop. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.09 Street tree clearance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.10 Example of a tree well that provides ample space for roots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.10 Sidewalk section with structural soil. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.10 Proper tree selection, planting, and maintenance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.11 Bulbouts providing space for trees and other street landscaping. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.11 Pedestrian-scaled signage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.12 List of Figures

vii

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Figure 4.20: Figure 4.21: Figure 4.22: Figure 4.23: Figure 4.24: Figure 4.25: Figure 4.26: Figure 4.27: Figure 4.28: Figure 4.29: Figure 4.30: Figure 4.31: Figure 4.32: Figure 4.33: Figure 4.34: Figure 4.35: Figure 4.36: Figure 4.37: Figure 4.38:

Clear maps helping pedestrians find their location and destination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.12 Public art incorporated into public seating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.13 An oversized chess game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.13 A creekside trail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.14 A landscaped pedestrian accessway linking a development’s parking lot with street. . . . . . . . . . . .4.14 A midblock accessway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.15 A disconnected block . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.15 Same block, “stitched” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.15 Midblock Accessways and cul-de-sac connectors dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.16 A pedestrian cul-de-sac connector as small neighborhood open space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.16 Cul-de-sac connectors can improve pedestrian and emergency vehicle access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.17 Public stairway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.17 Acceptable stair profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.17 The unique needs of children warrant special attention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.18 Narrow streets and a crossing guard. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.19 Signage is necessary in school zones to caution drivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.20 Signage is necessary in school zones to caution drivers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.20 Many pedestrians are seniors and have special mobility issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.21 Parking lane used for pedestrian path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.21

CHAPTER 5 Figure 5.1: Figure 5.2:

Maintaining safe, direct and efficient access to transit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.01 Automatic gates at Caltrain station . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.04

CHAPTER 6 Figure 6.1: Figure 6.2: Figure 6.3: Figure 6.4: Figure 6.5: Figure 6.6: Figure 6.7: Figure 6.8: Figure 6.9: Figure 6.10: Figure 6.11: Figure 6.12: Figure 6.13: Figure 6.14: Figure 6.15: Figure 6.16: Figure 6.17: Figure 6.18: Figure 6.19: Figure 6.20: Figure 6.21: Figure 6.22: Figure 6.23: Figure 6.24: viii

Building articulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.01 Liner buildings provide street frontage with parking behind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.01 Landscaped thruway provides access to parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.01 Building recesses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.02 A typical suburban “garagescape” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.02 Recommended minimum ratio of vertical height to street width . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.03 Pedestrian-friendly features in front of houses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.03 Architectural climate controls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.04 Palo Alto arcade offers shade to the passing pedestrian. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.04 Poorly designed parking lots as barriers in a community . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.05 An example of a parking garage with retail frontage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.06 An example of a shared street . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.06 An example of parking garage screened by landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.07 An example of campus parking with defined pedestrian paths . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.07 A defined pedestrian path . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.07 A comfortable microclimate for cars and pedestrians. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.08 Detail of tree planting in an “orchard-style” parking lot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.08 Parking lot landscaping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.09 A planted trellis screening parking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.09 A low wall screening parking. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.09 Plazas and open space as important public gathering places . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.10 Parks and open spaces designed with a variety of pedestrian amenities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.10 A neighborhood park . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.11 Planted medians as valuable urban open spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.12

List of Figures

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

LIST OF TABLES CHAPTER 2 Table 2.1: Table 2.2: Table 2.3: Table 2.4: Table 2.5: Table 2.6: Table 2.7: Table 2.8: Table 2.9:

Model Street Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.08 Neighborhood Street Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.09 Mixed-Use and Main Street Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.10 Industrial/R&D Office Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.12 Community Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.13 Regional Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.14 Commercial Streets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.15 Urban Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.16 Traffic Calming Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2.24

CHAPTER 3 Table 3.1: Table 3.2:

Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Guidelines Matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.02 Devices at Traffic Signals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3.08

CHAPTER 4 Table 4.1: Table 4.2:

Recommended Illuminance Values for Walkways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.06 Recommended Pedestrian Illuminance for Intersections and Midblock Crossings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4.06

CHAPTER 5 Table 5.1:

Pedestrian Access to Transit Measures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5.02

CHAPTER 6 Table 6.1:

Maximum Building Setback and Minimum Street Frontage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6.03

List of Tables

ix

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

x

Executive Summary

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Executive Summary: Walkability Concepts and Checklist Attractive pedestrian spaces are essential ingredients of healthy communities, both for support of multimodal travel and for providing great public spaces. The present built environment does not fulfill these important roles to its fullest potential; new considerations for pedestrians are needed in planning and designing community infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, buildings, and public spaces. VTA presents the Pedestrian Technical Guidelines as a technical resource to those responsible for designing community infrastructure and who are interested in improving the pedestrian environment.

A few guiding concepts highlight the key principles of planning for pedestrian-supportive environments. From these broad concepts spring the specific guidelines for the various pieces of the built environment.

Give pedestrians more, safe, comfortable, and interesting walking space. Pedestrians need wide pathways, not simply for room to maneuver, but also to feel comfortable. Beyond width, pedestrians desire shelter from sun and rain, as well as a sense of being enclosed by nearby buildings or trees, rather than exposed in a barren asphalt expanse. Lastly, visually interesting, highly detailed surroundings, and amenities such as seating and sidewalk cafes, render a walk more enjoyable, and may even entice people to linger and relax.

Protect pedestrians from traffic. Fast-moving traffic is both risky to pedestrians crossing streets, as well as uncomfortable for those walking along them. Speed management techniques in the design of streets can make pedestrians safer by prompting drivers to slow down and exercise caution, while design treatments at street crossings can reduce crossing distances and make pedestrians more visible. Objects that serve as buffers between sidewalks and passing traffic, such as parked cars and landscaping, also increase pedestrian comfort.

Create great outdoor spaces. For some, such as pedestrians and riders waiting for transit, being outside is a necessity; for others, it is a welcome opportunity for relaxation and spontaneous encounters. Well-designed urban public spaces near transit stops and high-pedestrian areas can cater to both groups by making outdoor spaces enjoyable destinations.

Shorten walking distances. Pedestrians are particularly sensitive to circuitous routes because, at low speeds, longer distances translate into much longer travel times. Shortcuts for pedestrians

This pedestrian space in Sunnyvale is both a comfortable space for people to walk through and an outdoor destination.

It’s on foot that you see people’s faces and statures and that you meet and experience them. That is how public socializing and community enjoyment in daily life can most easily occur. And it’s on foot that one can be most intimately involved with the urban environment; with stores, houses, the natural environment, and with people.

- Allan B. Jacobs "Great Streets" Executive Summary

xi

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

such as cul-de-sac connectors and mid-block accessways can make previously infeasible trips walkable.

The following Walkability Checklist responds to the above pedestrian concepts with particular pedestrian-supportive elements that are necessary parts of the built environment, and therefore need to be incoporated into planning and design efforts throughout the community.

Travelway Elements Narrower streets and travel lanes; Striped on-street parking; Striped bicycle lanes; Physical traffic calming devices to reduce design speeds and protect neighborhoods; and Landscaping, including planted medians and trees, with stormwater quality designs.

Intersection Elements High-visibility striping and/or alternative paving treatments for pedestrian crossings; Minimum curb return radii and bulbouts to minimize crossing distances; Appropriate curb ramp designs; Pedestrian refuge median islands at wide crossings; Pedestrian-friendly signal timing; and Modern roundabouts at strategic locations.

Sidewalk Elements Sidewalks with appropriate widths, cross-slopes, grades, and surfaces; Street trees and planting strips or tree wells to buffer pedestrians from traffic, with stormwater quality designs; Pedestrian-scale lighting in addition to roadway lighting; Amenities such as seating, newsracks, outdoor cafes, and retail displays, especially near transit stops; Pedestrian-oriented signage; and Secure bicycle parking.

xii

Executive Summary

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Connectivity Elements Interconnected streets to disperse traffic loads rather than dead-end streets; Alleys and shared streets to increase connectivity; Pedestrian and bicycle connections where roadway connections are not feasible, such as mid-block accessways, cul-desac connectors, stairways, and bridges; Midblock crosswalks at strategic locations, with crossing enhancements; and Grade-separated crossings across barriers such as high-speed roads, railroad tracks, and waterways.

Building and Site Elements Land uses are mixed, with pedestrian-activity-generating uses on ground floors; Buildings adjacent to the street, with entrances and windows facing the street; Interfaces between buildings and sidewalks that provide shelter from weather and visually interesting details; and Walkways connect from sidewalks through the site and to building entrances.

Parking Elements Minimum necessary amount supplied, accounting for shared, on-street parking; Structured rather than surface parking; Surface lots to the rear of buildings and dispersed, rather than in front and bunched together; Structures wrapped with street-level mixed use or, at minimum, screened with landscaping; Clear, direct and attractive internal pedestrian circulation network to building entrances and surrounding sidewalk; Landscaping to reduce impervious surface and trees to shade pedestrians; Number and width of driveways minimized; and Access shared with neighboring lots.

Executive Summary

xiii

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Transit Access Elements Stops located in high-activity areas rather than on the periphery; Adequate width of the pedestrian realm adjacent to transit facilities; Enhanced crossings at intersections in proximity to station; Direct access to station from adjacent development; Integration of access routes with street, trail network; Signal timing at intersections in proximity to station that benefit the pedestrian; and Safe pedestrian crossings of rail tracks.

Urban Public Space Elements Small urban public spaces provided; Spaces visible, accessible from surrounding neighborhood; Located near land uses that ‘activate’ spaces with people, activity; and Seating provided, with flexible configurations.

Improving the pedestrian environment begins by establishing a community vision for high-quality pedestrian places. That vision is achievable through incremental steps in the planning and design of communities, with active participation from local governments and the development industry, as well as support from the general public. Designs of buildings, streets, and sidewalks will need to change, as well as the processes and policies that govern them. Funding is also needed, and aid from a variety of sources is available to help. Finally, these initiatives will rely on sustained public support for pedestrian priorities, buoyed by outreach and education by local governments on the benefits of pedestrian infrastructure. The diagram on the following page illustrates steps in the pedestrian planning process. The individual steps toward change may seem small, but they will accumulate into a worthwhile endeavor, producing better pedestrian environments, and, ultimately, better communities.

xiv

Executive Summary

-

mixed uses setback requirements higher densities site coverage parking requirements

-

sidewalk reconstruction new sidewalks new ped crossings new ped connections new ped spaces, amenities

-

street reconstructions re-surfacing, re-striping intersection modifications new street connections

Street Infrastructure Projects

Pedestrian Infrastructure Projects

Ped-Supportive Development Environment

- ped infrastructure - local street infrastructure

IMPLEMENT

- ped infrastructure - local street infrastructure

Regional, State, Federal Fund Sources

- ped-friendly street designs - ped-friendly sidewalk designs

Capital Improvement Program

Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to Transit neighborhood Ped Plans safety Troubleshooting

LEVERAGE

-

Street and Sidewalk Standard Design Details

MODIFY

New City Policy or Process

Existing City Policy or Process to be Adapted

MODIFY

- ped circulation routes - streetscape and building design

'Spot' Plans

IMPLEMENT

- Identify ped-friendly urban design - Identify ped-friendly street, sidewalk designs

New Specific Plans

CREATE

CREATE

Work with developers early for: - ped-friendly land use - ped design provisions

Design Guidelines

Development Review Process

Zoning Codes

MODIFY OR CREATE

- define ped patterns - needed ped infrastructure - where to support ped activity

- peds part of Community Vision - ped-friendly land use diagram - ped-friendly street network

MODIFY OR CREATE

Pedestrian Master Plan

General Plan

MODIFY

CREATE

MODIFY

Desire to Improve the Pedestrian Environment

MODIFY

Note: Cities may opt to perform either or both of these steps, but may also opt to skip to the next steps if there already exists a clear picture of where to focus pedestrian efforts.

PEDESTRIAN PLANNING OVERVIEW

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Executive Summary

xv

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

xvi

Executive Summary

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

1. Planning for Pedestrians 1.1 Introduction Pedestrian spaces and infrastructure are vitally important to the health of civil society. They strengthen our communities in two principal ways—by promoting walking as a transportation mode, and by creating high-quality civic spaces.

First, pedestrian infrastructure supports the most fundamental form of transportation: walking. Everyone travels by walking at some point, and for some, it is the only travel mode they use.

Communities designed to support walking benefit a broad constituency, facilitating travel for those who do not drive, improving the transit user experience, and enabling drivers to avoid traffic congestion by getting out of their cars. And the more people walk, the more opportunities they have to interact, an essential ingredient of strong communities.

Who are Pedestrians?

Pedestrians are people who walk, sit, stand, or use a wheelchair in public spaces, be they children, teens, adults, elderly, people with disabilities, workers, residents, shoppers or peoplewatchers.

The second role of pedestrian infrastructure is that of building community, for the civic experience is inseparable from the pedestrian experience. Great pedestrian spaces are great public places, shaping the identities of our cities and towns. They serve as our most prominent public gathering places, the all-inclusive forum through which citizens interact with their civic environment. A high-quality community life is not possible without them.

For the past several decades, the institutions and practices that are responsible for how our built environment looks and functions have focused heavily on the convenience and safety of automobile travel. Resulting features, such as barren streetscapes, circuitous walking routes, intimidatingly long street crossings, and expansive parking lots, have dampened enthusiasm for walking. To add a layer of complication, pieces of the built environment are planned, designed, funded, built, and maintained by different entities, including both the public and private sectors. This jagged division of responsibility, coupled with a lack of focus on the pedestrian experience, has produced many inhospitable walking environments in Santa Clara County.

But change is afoot. A new approach to building our communities is emerging, one that returns to the tradition of pedestrian spaces, that explicitly plans to change city form and street design to create truly pedestrian-supportive environments. In transportation planning, this change requires moving from an approach focused mainly on pedestrian safety that considers pedestrians secondary to traffic flow, to one whose goal is to support pedestrian activity outright, and ultimately, to once again engage in community building.

Figure 1.1: Places with generous provisions for pedestrians encourage walking and lingering.

Figure 1.2: Sidewalks that lack pedestrian provisions can feel barren and uncomfortable for pedestrians.

Planning for Pedestrians

1.01

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

The VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines (PTGs) are intended to help shepherd this change by increasing the collective pool of pedestrian expertise. The guidelines aim to build the capabilities of local governments, citizen groups, and the real estate development industry to address pedestrian concerns in the design of the built environment, from streets and sidewalks to buildings and urban spaces. Armed with the knowledge contained in these guidelines, planners, engineers, and designers can modify current institutional and industry policies and practices, and put them to work to re-shape the built environment into high-quality pedestrian and community spaces.

Figure 1.3: Streets that are designed with the pedestrian in mind, like The Alameda in San Jose, make for great public spaces.

1.1.1 Community Design & Transportation and The Pedestrian Technical Guidelines A discussion of pedestrian-supportive communities cannot be complete without mention of land use patterns. After all, pedestrian activity is inextricably linked to land uses; even a beautifully constructed sidewalk will not see use unless there is a reason for people to be there. To draw the crowds that make a place successful, pedestrian infrastructure requires proximity to land uses that are desirable destinations.

VTA has recognized the role of land use in creating functional alternative transportation systems, and has created the Community Design & Transportation (CDT) Program to address the multi-faceted relationship between transportation and land use. The CDT Program calls for the creation of higher-intensity, mixed-use areas, designated as the VTA Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas, in which walking, biking, and transit become functional and attractive choices. The CDT Program has developed a Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use, a broad-based foundation that discusses in broad strokes designs for land uses and transportation systems that can support alternative travel modes.

Figure 1.4: Bus shelters can become integral parts of the street, not just places to wait for the bus.

1.02

Planning for Pedestrians

The CDT Manual recognizes that land use and transportation must be addressed together to develop informed policies for jurisdictions within the county, and by doing so, that efficiencies in both public and private investment can be achieved. For example, the VTA transit system, a major public investment, will be used more effectively, and the improved mobility and access will lead to improved quality of life and a better business environment. Since all trips start and end on foot, the pedestrian realm is a critical linkage in the land use-transportation equation. Pedestrian-oriented design seeks to increase transportation choices and to decrease the number of trips that must be made by car. A walkable environment encourages people to organize their daily routine around this premise by creating an environment that is better

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

suited to pedestrians. The PTGs build upon the foundation laid by the CDT Manual and focus exclusively on issues pertaining to the pedestrian environment within and beyond the VTA Cores, Corridors and Station Areas.

1.2

Implementing the Guidelines

To create a vital, functional pedestrian realm within the built environment will require mobilizing agents of change throughout the community. Since local governments own the land on which streets, sidewalks and public spaces are built, and make the policy that governs land use development, responsibility for the implementation of pedestrian design lies with them. The role that the private sector plays in building individual sites is also important.

Finally, the broader community can play a role by advocating for better pedestrian environments and becoming educated about safe and cordial interactions among drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians. The CDT Manual includes special focus on implementation, and should be referenced in addition to the material here.

Getting Started. The question of where to begin can be a daunting one; indeed, the geographic extent of Santa Clara County’s urbanized area amounts to 325 square miles, and time and resources are limited. While all areas could benefit from improved pedestrian environments, communities should initially focus on areas where investment would be most effective in increasing walking activity. Candidates include places where land uses are mixed and intense, or are planned to be, and where transit service is robust. Through its CDT Program, VTA has identified such areas; a collection of streets, neighborhoods, and districts called Cores, Corridors, and Station Areas. In addition, areas immediately surrounding schools, community parks, civic buildings, retail shopping areas, and entertainment districts can be targeted for focused attention to pedestrians. An effective combination of improvements should include, but not be limited to, downtown areas. Pedestrians should be welcome throughout the community.

Private Roles. Many necessary changes in the built environment are not possible without the support of the private real estate development industry. First, not all pedestrian facilities fall in public right-of-way. Some streets, sidewalks, walkways, and open spaces are behind private property lines, and thus are the responsibility of private developers and landowners. Additionally, the interface between private buildings and public sidewalks, as discussed in the guidelines, becomes a key component of the pedestrian realm.

Developers can contribute by changing designs used to create new

Figure 1.5: Planning for pedestrians means enhancing mobility for all who share the street right-of-way (source: Dan Burton).

Figure 1.6: Creating comfortable crossings of major walking barriers such as wide streets is critical to creating pedestrian-friendly places.

Planning for Pedestrians

1.03

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

sites and buildings to better embody the guidelines. And, as an industry regulated by local government policies, developers can support changes that identify ahead of time visions and concepts for how communities want their pedestrian environments to look, thereby rendering the development approval process more predictable.

Public Roles. Local governments play a central role in pedestrian planning. They can work to improve the pedestrian environment in two ways: by planning specifically for pedestrians; and by changing existing processes and policies to better support pedestrian activity.

Figure 1.7: Urban areas can be enhanced by providing safe and attractive places to pause in the public realm.

1.2.1

Pedestrian Planning Methods

Planning specifically for pedestrians can be an easy way for jurisdictions to improve walking conditions. Pedestrian planning enables jurisdictions to designate important pedestrian areas, identify pedestrian needs, and make improvements in areas where they are most effective. This section highlights some concepts and methods for pedestrian planning.

A. Pedestrian Master Plans

Figure 1.8: Pedestrian Master Plans identify principal walking routes as a way to focus pedestrians investments (source: City of Oakland Pedestrian Master Plan).

Local jurisdictions should develop Pedestrian Master Plans (PMPs), as have cities such as Oakland, California; Cambridge, Massechusetts; and Portland, Oregon. The PMP process identifies the specific pedestrian infrastructure needs of a community and prioritizes new investment to support a particular level of pedestrian connectivity, safety, and comfort. A PMP can include any or all of the following elements: an inventory of a city’s current pedestrian travel patterns and infrastructure; the designation of pedestrian routes of community-wide importance; identification of gaps in connectivity on these routes and methods to close them; a policy to determine the degree of improvements based on unmet needs; a map and list of highest-priority facilities, and

Figure 1.9: Pedestrian Master Plans provide narrative and illustrative visions for the pedestrian environment (source: City of Oakland Pedestrian Master Plan).

1.04

Planning for Pedestrians

an implementation program identifying specific policy changes and funding sources for improving pedestrian facilities.

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

A PMP may also be integrated with the community’s required ADA Transition Plan, which identifies and sets forth an implementation program for needed improvements. Much of the survey work and improvements needed for a Transition Plan are similar to those needed for a PMP. This creates an opportunity for cost-sharing.

The PMP should use the latest available methods for identifying and providing the proper facilities to support pedestrian travel.

One method is to develop a “Level of Service” for pedestrian facilities. A survey of qualitative measures for level of service developed around the nation is included in Appendix 1.

There is no way around it; Pedestrian Master Planning for an extensive area is a significant undertaking. But for jurisdictions that are interested in improving the pedestrian environment, such planning is an invaluable complement to other infrastructure planning initiatives that identify community-building improvements.

B. “Spot” Planning Focusing on a few, small areas throughout the community may be a less daunting task than the comprehensive demands of a PMP. Such "spot” planning efforts can take the following forms.

Safe Routes to School. School areas can be examined to improve conditions for pedestrians on sidewalks, streets, and intersections in the vicinity. By supporting and encouraging more walking to school, this type of planning also fulfills goals for children’s health and safety. State, and possibly federal, funds are being made available for these efforts. Chapter 4, Creating a Pedestrian Realm includes a section devoted to schools and children.

Safe Routes to Transit. Areas around transit stops could also be targeted for pedestrian improvements, which would create comfortable and direct pedestrian connections to nearby neighborhoods and destinations. Local jurisdictions can partner with VTA to jointly undertake such efforts.

Neighborhood Pedestrian Plans. Individual neighborhoods can be surveyed to highlight important pedestrian routes, including routes linking residents with local services to identify needed pedestrian infrastructure (e.g. creating ‘milk maps’ showing walking distance to buy milk). These efforts are best combined with other exercises that focus on a limited area, such as specific planning and traffic calming, to comprehensively address neighborhood visions and pursue common goals.

Figure 1.10: San Jose’s Guadalupe River Park and Gardens Master Plan combined a flood control project, an urban park project, and a creek trail. It will improve flood control as well as provide pedestrian infrastructure and connections.

Figure 1.11: Pedestrian infrastructure can be included in private developments, like this fountain and park in Mountain View.

Planning for Pedestrians

1.05

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Safety Troubleshooting. A community-wide analysis of vehiclepedestrian collisions can reveal locations with higher rates of collision. These locations can then be examined for solutions that address the dominant crash type to improve pedestrian safety.

Unfortunately, in Santa Clara County, collision documentation is currently practiced in a manner that does not enable easy and accurate analysis. Substantial cooperation with law enforcement departments is needed to produce exhaustive electronic collision documentation that can easily be analyzed to point out trouble spots.

Figure 1.12: Thoughtful treatment of parking and its interface with the pedestrian realm produces enormous positive impact on walking conditions.

1.2.2

Change From Within

As effective as pedestrian planning efforts are in focusing new pedestrian investment, it cannot on its own produce a high-quality pedestrian environment. Many local government processes and policies affect walking conditions, but currently are not designed to improve them. Jurisdictions can vastly improve pedestrian environments by adapting these policies and processes to better support pedestrian activity. This section discusses such internal changes that can improve walking conditions.

A. General Plans A jurisdiction’s commitment to creating pedestrian-supportive environments should be reflected in its General Plan. The General Plan expresses the community’s vision and defines the policy initiatives necessary to achieve that vision. This commitment entails modifying the Land Use Element to allow and encourage more compact, mixed-use, pedestrian-supportive development, including policies to create zoning and design guidelines for such development. In addition to calling for pedestrian improvements throughout the community, the General Plan should also identify pedestrian districts where special focus would be placed on creating a pedestrian-supportive environment.

Figure 1.13: Pedestrian supportive policies and programs should be reflected in a jurisdiction’s General Plan.

The Circulation Element should also respond by balancing vehicle improvements with improvements in the pedestrian realm.

Achieving this balance means re-thinking the vehicular level of service policies governing the nature and extent of roadway improvements required of new development. A new approach, for instance, may be to accept downgrades in vehicular level of service in specific areas, in exchange for improved pedestrian conditions.

A Pedestrian Master Plan (as discussed in Section 1.2.1A), or a commitment to produce one, should also be included within the Circulation Element. Policies should support balanced investment in transportation improvements for all modes in the jurisdiction’s capital improvement program (CIP).

1.06

Planning for Pedestrians

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

B. Creating and Modifying Specific Plans Specific Plans apply the broad policy statements of the General Plan to guide development in defined districts within a city.

Specific Plans create a community vision for how a district will look and function. They then specify the mix and density of land uses and establish design guidelines for buildings, public spaces, and circulation systems, to achieve that vision. Specific Plans, then, are ideal tools for implementing pedestrian-supportive design.

The Land Use and Community Character chapter of the Specific Plan helps to establish the mix of uses and design guidelines necessary for a pedestrian-supportive environment. The Circulation chapter can illustrate pedestrian-supportive streetscape designs and a circulation plan that features a highly connected pedestrian network. Finally, the Specific Plan’s implementation program can define timing and burden of cost shared between the public and private sectors for new pedestrian infrastructure, adding certainty to the process for potential developers. The PTG document has been designed expressly for use in creating such specific plans, and should be considered as a resource when doing so.

Figure 1.14: Specific Plans are an important means for establishing pedestrian oriented guidelines and policies.

C. Pedestrian-Supportive Zoning Codes Zoning codes, which dictate major aspects of land development, such as the type and density of allowable use, have a high impact on the pedestrian environment. Codes can also mandate design requirements to increase architectural detail and transparency, reduce setbacks to bring buildings closer to streets, and mandate parking designs that minimize impact on pedestrians. Lastly, the number of parking spaces required by zoning codes can be reduced to improve the pedestrian environment. Chapter 7 of the CDT Manual also discusses pedestrian-supportive zoning strategies, which include allowing for more mixed use, higher densities, and smaller residential lots.

For local jurisdictions unable to undertake a comprehensive zoning update, a new overlay zone can help accomplish many pedestrian goals. Overlay zones can supercede existing zones in strategic areas, allowing or requiring higher levels of land use mix and intensity, as well as imposing additional requirements for design details such as setbacks and rooflines that support pedestrian activity. San Jose and Mountain View have both implemented such overlay zones.

Figure 1.15: Zoning codes have a significant impact on the pedestrian environment, and should reflect pedestrian-oriented planning and design principles.

Planning for Pedestrians

1.07

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

D. Design Standards Modifying street and sidewalk standards. Local jurisdictions control the design of their streets and sidewalks using standards.

Pedestrian comfort and interest may not have been factored into the original formulation of these standards. Jurisdictions can review and revise their street and sidewalk design standards to better account for the needs of pedestrians, with a movement toward narrower travel lanes and wider sidewalks.

Although design and construction may be carried out by private developers, local governments can communicate, a pedestriansupportive vision for how neighborhoods and buildings should look by establishing guidelines for developers. In this way, jurisdictions can ensure the presence of pedestrian-supportive design details as areas develop or re-develop.

Figure 1.16: Street and sidewalk standards may need changes, such as allowing sidewalk fences, to improve the pedestrian environment.

Development Review and Approval Process. The complement to plans, design guidelines, and standards is the process by which proposed developments are reviewed and approved. This process allows the jurisdiction to ensure that the proper design treatments are applied to individual private development projects.

Staff involved with this process should understand the tenets of high-quality pedestrian design, this will enable them to work with developers to ensure that projects include appropriate design elements for pedestrians. Effecting change at every level of involved staff points to the need for outreach and education, as discussed in the following section.

1.2.3 Funding to Support Pedestrian Activity As is apparent in previous sections, pedestrian planning requires review of current processes and practices, as well as new efforts.

And in the end, this process requires resources. Jurisdictions that can mobilize a variety of funding sources toward pedestrian efforts will improve their ability to engage in successful pedestrian planning and implementation.

A. City Commitments Financial support is needed at the city level both for planning efforts (e.g. PMPs, Specific Plans, or zoning updates) and for the construction of pedestrian facilities.

Figure 1.17: Building pedestrian-friendly places necessitates both public- and private-sector involvement; here, public streetscape features are complimented well by private cafe tables.

1.08

Planning for Pedestrians

To keep track of their public infrastructure investments, local jurisdictions employ Capital Improvement Programs (CIPs) which list infrastructure projects underway or that will be undertaken in the near future. To include investments for pedestrian infrastructure, local jurisdictions should modify their CIPs to include pedestrian and streetscape infrastructure projects that have been

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

identified in the Pedestrian Master Plan, Specific Plan, or other planning efforts.

B. VTA Fund Sources VTA is implementing a major transit expansion in the county, providing funds for transit projects that include significant pedestrian components such as station area improvements. These areas are excellent opportunities for VTA and Member Agencies to partner in creating pedestrian-supportive station areas.

In addition, VTA is drawing upon state and federal transportation sources to create grant programs available to local agencies for planning and capital projects that improve the pedestrian environment. They are as follow: Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Planning Grant Program

Figure 1.18: Public investment in infrastructure such as functional public art is most effective in areas where concerted efforts are being made to suppport pedestrian activity.

Local Streets and County Roads Program Livable Communities and Pedestrian Program The CDT grant program is being made available for the kinds of planning efforts discussed in these guidelines, while the latter two programs will fund capital projects that may result from VTA-funded or other planning efforts.

C. Other Fund Sources A number of other fund sources are now available to local agencies aiming to improve the pedestrian environment. Some sources are targeted at infrastructure-building projects, while others are intended to support pedestrian planning efforts. A brief list follows.

Transportation for Livable Communities (TLC). The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has created the TLC program to distribute funds on a competitive grants basis to both planning and capital projects in the Bay Area that aim to improve streets, town centers, and transit hubs. Details are available at: http://www.mtc.ca.gov/projects/livable_communities/lcindex.htm Safe Routes to School (SR2S). The California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) has created the SR2S program to distribute funds on a competitive grants basis for projects statewide that improve school walking safety. Details are available at: http://www.caltrans.ca.gov/hq/LocalPrograms/saferoute2.htm

Planning for Pedestrians

1.09

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Caltrans Office of Community Planning For roadways under Caltrans jurisdiction, Caltrans has created the Office of Community Planning (OCP) to facilitate community-sensitive approaches to transportation decision-making. The OCP works with communities to implement context sensitive design solutions, especially where state highways serve as the main street for a communities. Entering into negotiations with an adopted set of guidelines greatly assists in establishing a pedestriansupportive vision for how neighborhoods, streets, intersections, sidewalks, and buildings should look.

Palo Alto has recently used this approach for the redesign of El Camino Real (State Route 82).

Community Based Transportation Planning (CBTP).

Caltrans has also created the statewide CBTP program to distribute funds on a competitive grants basis. Grants are awarded to planning activities that encourage livable communities by better integrating land use and transportation planning, developing alternatives for addressing growth, and assessing efficient infrastructure investments. Details are available at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ocp/cbtpg.htm Transportation Development Act, Article III (TDA-3). This section of the State Transportation Development Act of 1972 provides funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects. In Santa Clara County, these funds are made available to the local jurisdictions annually on a formula basis. Details are available from VTA. Transportation, Community, and System Preservation Pilot Program (TCSP). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has created the TCSP program to fund planning activities on a competitive grants basis nationwide. The program aims to improve the efficiency of the transportation system, reduce environmental impacts of transportation, reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments, ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade, and examine private sector development patterns and investments that support these goals. Details are available at: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/ Public Art Funding. Some jurisdictions commit local money to public art, and private sources are also made available to bring art to the community. Channeling these sources toward pedestrian-supportive public art installations can accomplish public art goals while improving the pedestrian environment as well.

1.2.4 Outreach and Education The executive summary encapsulates the guidelines discussed here into a ‘Walkability Checklist’, and can serve as a brief introduction to the subject. Raising awareness of pedestrian needs in the design professions is the first step toward achieving pedestrian-supportive design. Educating the public is also important, as more harmonious interactions among drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians can also noticeably improve the pedestrian environment.

A. Promoting Pedestrian-Supportive Design To become advocates for pedestrian-supportive communities, planners, engineers, designers, as well as the public, need to understand that neighborhoods, streets, and sidewalks can be designed to actively support pedestrian activity. There are a variety of ways to spread the word about pedestrian planning; below are a few suggestions.

1.10

Planning for Pedestrians

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Walkability Checklist. The Executive Summary encapsulates the tenets of pedestrian planning detailed in these guidelines into a Walkability Checklist, and can serve as a brief introduction to the subject. Jurisdictions can use the checklist in many ways.

It could be used to raise awareness about the requirements of pedestrians for staff working on sidewalk and street projects or reviewing development projects. The checklist could also serve as an educational piece for private developers. Jurisdictions may even institute a system in which development projects must meet a specified threshold of pedestrian-supportive elements for approval.

Workshops and Walking Tours. Local governments can host workshops to highlight pedestrian planning principles and determine implementation strategies. Workshops can be tailored to managers and decision-makers, staff, or the public. All three audiences are important: pedestrian-supportive design needs to be supported at the decision-making level, well designed and implemented at the staff level, and supported and appreciated by the public. As a potential supplement to workshops, walking tours are an illustrative way for citizens and decision-makers to learn about what makes places pedestrian-friendly, and what could be done in their communities to make them more so.

Figure 1.19: Advertising campaigns such as San Jose’s Street Smarts program can improve the pedestrian environment by encouraging driver behavioral change.

Print and Web Materials. To create support for pedestrian planning efforts, local governments can produce print and web materials that explain the elements of pedestrian-supportive communities and their benefits to the general public. These materials can spread the word about, or even serve as a forum to create, a community vision of how sidewalks, streets, and neighborhoods should look. By establishing and marketing this vision, jurisdictions can create an atmosphere in which future private development or public infrastructure projects that improve the pedestrian environment receive stronger public support and therefore, enjoy a higher probability of success.

B. Promoting Harmonious Street Interactions Changing the behavior of those who use the transportation system can be an effective way to improve the pedestrian environment. To change their behavior, drivers need to be educated about how fast and reckless driving can adversely affect pedestrians; cyclists about maintaining safe speeds when sharing paths with pedestrians; and pedestrians about safe walking habits.

Better enforcement of existing laws can help educate people. A moving violation or jaywalking citation certainly communicates to a driver, bicyclist or pedestrian that behavioral change is warranted. But these are individual channels, whereas changing behavior community-wide requires a community-wide audience.

Planning for Pedestrians

1.11

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Media campaigns can accomplish just that, by changing community attitudes toward safe driving, cycling, and walking. The campaign mounted against drunk driving is a good example of a successful behavior-changing campaign. San Jose’s recent Street Smarts media campaign used space on billboards, buses, and transit shelters, as well as radio spots and media kits distributed to neighborhood associations, to encourage safe driver behavior.

Such a campaign can be replicated throughout Santa Clara County.

The following are models which could be used in developing this site: http://www.walksanjose.org http://www.walkinginfo.org http://www.nsc.org/walk/wkcheck.htm http://www.peds.org http://www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk http://www.walksf.org http://www.walksacramento.org http://209.213.108.66/crosswalk/index.cfm http://www.baypeds.org http://www.citystreets.org/home.html

1.3 How to Read the PTG The remainder of this document provides guidelines for pedestrian-oriented site and detail design. The guidelines deal with street, sidewalk, and building design as well as the roles of parking, landscape, and open space in creating a pedestrian-supportive environment. Recommendations are geared towards designers and planners who are designing for a variety of development types, such as mixed-use village centers, retail or office centers, central business districts, new residential neighborhoods or infill development sites. Professionals involved in street design and transit facilities should also look to these guidelines as the basis for building truly multi-modal streets. Individual property owners wishing to improve conditions on their sites will also find these guidelines useful, as will residents, businesses, or workers who wish to improve their neighborhood or district.

When pertinent, each set of guidelines is preceded by a discussion of any or all of the following specific issues: Accessibility; New Development vs. Retrofitting and Conversions; Figure 1.20: This street crossing in Berkeley incorporates standards and requirements for accessible design.

1.12

Planning for Pedestrians

Relation to Transit Facilities;

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Urban, Suburban and Rural Context; Implementation and Relation to Existing Guidelines and Practices; and Maintenance.

Each issue is discussed below.

A. Accessibility Design of the pedestrian environment is of vital importance to people with mobility limitations. In recognition of this issue, many federal and state accessibility requirements and guidelines apply to the design of pedestrian facilities. These guidelines have been designed to fall within federal and state requirements, and issues that are particular to accessibility are brought up when relevant. In addition, accessibility guidelines are included in a stand-alone discussion in Section 1.4, Accessibility Requirements.

Figure 1.21: Some treatments, such as residential traffic calming circles, are easily retrofitted into existing rights-of-way.

B. New Development vs. Retrofitting and Conversions These guidelines have been created to provide guidance for creating transportation improvements and development that are supportive of walking as a safe and viable mode of transportation.

Guidance is provided both for new development and transportation systems in undeveloped areas, and for the retrofitting of existing streets and developed areas. This is important, because much of the Santa Clara Valley is already developed, and it is expected that much future development will occur through the infill and revitalization of existing neighborhoods, districts, centers, and corridors.

Figure 1.22: For treatments such as wide sidewalks, provisions are necessary at the time that new land uses are proposed.

There are also special conditions and particular issues that must be considered in the application of the guidelines to either new or retrofit projects. These conditions and issues are highlighted when pertinent.

C. Relation to Transit Facilities Pedestrian-oriented design is an essential component in the viability of transit - walking is a major part of every transit-user's trip.

Site and detail design enhancements to the pedestrian realm improve the overall transit experience. Care must be taken to ensure that any improvements will support existing or future transit systems and provide safe and direct connections between transit stops or stations and destinations in the neighborhood.

Figure 1.23: Pedestrian facilities such as Centennial Park in Mountain View can turn transit into a prominent community feature.

Planning for Pedestrians

1.13

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

In addition to issues listed for each individual guideline set, Chapter 5, Pedestrian Access to Transit details operational design and procedural protocols for coordinating pedestrian improvements with existing or proposed transit facilities to ensure a “seamless” connection.

D. Urban, Suburban and Rural Contexts

Figure 1.24: In urban locations, recommended features include high-density residences above groundfloor retail uses, pedestrian-scale lighting, and enough sidewalk width to comfortably host sidewalk cafes.

There is not one standard set of detail and site design improvements applicable to all the conditions throughout Santa Clara County. Urban, suburban, and rural environments have obvious differences in character and pedestrian needs. These guidelines discuss “pedestrian-supportive areas.” These areas are not only in urban cores. For example, a one block stretch of shops in a small, rural community is the pedestrian core of the community and must be designed accordingly. VTA has identified a set of cores, corridors, and station areas that describes those places in the county where pedestrian-supportive environments would be most effective (discussed in more detail in Section 1.2, Implementing the Guidelines). However, pedestrian treatments can be effective outside of these areas as well.

Where necessary, this document discusses how to apply the PTGs in areas with various levels of urbanity. Typically a “minimum requirement” is stated which is applicable to most conditions. A higher standard may be stated for pedestrian-supportive areas, and special considerations for urban, suburban, or rural conditions are provided as necessary.

Figure 1.25: In suburban locations, recommended features include planting strips, street trees, entrances that front onto the street, and parking tucked away to the back.

E. Implementation and Relation to Current Standards and Practices In addition to ADA, these guidelines have a relationship to several sources including the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), Caltrans Highway Design Standards, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) policies and standards, the Institute of Transportation Engineers design standards, and local standards. Where necessary in the guidelines, potential conflicts between the guidelines and the existing regulatory context are noted.

However, standards and guidelines are evolving. For instance, through its Office of Community Planning, Caltrans is making efforts to consider “livable communities” and “context sensitive design solutions,” especially where State Highways serve as the Main Street for a community. Other references which could assist development of pedestrian-oriented designs include Caltrans Deputy Directive 64 Accommodating Non-Motorized Travel, Caltrans Best Practices Manual for Bikes/Pedestrians and the

1.14

Planning for Pedestrians

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

State of California Blueprint for Bicycling/Walking.

How cities can achieve an improved pedestrian environment by implementing these guidelines is an obvious and important issue.

In addition to the broader framework for implementation outlined in Section 1.2.2, each guideline listed has a recommended implementation measure listed when applicable.

To assist in determining when a certain measure should be implemented, thresholds and warrants are provided. Specific measures include addition of sidewalks and walkways, marked crosswalks, and use of traffic calming features.

The thresholds and warrants are based primarily on published standards and informational reports. Many of the pedestrian crossing features presented in these guidelines do not have absolute thresholds for their use. They are expected to be used in combination with the judgement of the engineer to address prevailing conditions or perceived safety conditions.

F. Maintenance The commitment to planning and implementing pedestrian facilities must be followed up with an appropriate level of maintenance. Accurate cost estimates of an annual maintenance program, and the jurisdictional responsibility of that program, should be developed prior to selection of a specific facility or improvement. Poorly maintained facilities can not only be unsafe, but can also convey a subliminal message to the pedestrian that the area is not cared for, and the pedestrian is not necessarily welcome.

Maintenance strategies and issues are listed, where pertinent, for individual sections.

1.4 Accessibility Requirements Millions of persons in the United States have a permanent or temporary disability caused by injury, age or illness. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) was signed into law on July 26, 1990.

This civil rights law ensures that a disabled person will have full access to all public facilities - primarily to public transit, public buildings and facilities, and along public rights-of-way.

In California, building standards published in the California Building Standards Code (Title 24) relating to accessibility by people with disabilities are intended to be used as minimum requirements ensuring that access to, through, and within buildings is accessible for every member of the public without loss of overall function, space, or facility. Regulations in California were developed by the Division of the State Architect Access

Figure 1.26: Pedestrian facilities should be designed to serve all users; the special needs of disabled pedestrians must be taken into account.

Planning for Pedestrians

1.15

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Compliance, eight years before the United States Congress passed the ADA. The current California Building Standards Code was written to provide a single code which would meet all of the most stringent requirements of the original California Building Standards Code, as well as the 1991 Federal Fair Housing Amendments Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines.

It is essential that the design of pedestrian facilities take into account the abilities and disabilities of ALL pedestrians. Mobility impairment is but one classification of disability. Other disibilities to consider include sensory deficits (the sight and hearing impaired) and cognitive impairments - those with diminished ability to process information, including language barriers.

The following discussion focuses on accessibility needs and requirements as defined by both federal and California Title 24 accessibility standards. Please note that different jurisdictions may have alternative interpretations of requirements and guidelines, and that some conflicts do exist between the federal and the state standards. Reference should be made to the local jurisdiction’s ADA transition plan. As of 2002, ADA is under review and the following guidelines reflect the recommendations of the National ADA Advisory Committee as represented in the Draft Guidelines for Accessible Public Rights-of-Way, dated June 17, 2002.

The following are guidelines for addressing accessibilty. In additon, individual sections of the PTG include discussions of accessibility when pertinent to other PTG recommendations.

A. Grades Figure 1.27: Accessible Passing Area (source: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board)

1. Level changes between 1/4 and 1/2 inch should be beveled with a slope no greater than 1:2.

2. Changes in level greater than 1/2 inch are to be treated as a ramp or curb ramp.

3.

A minimum linear separation of 30 inches is recommended between level changes in pedestrian access routes to prevent successive level changes that can be disruptive to wheelchair maneuvering, such as those that may be posed by sidewalk pavers.

4. Sidewalk cross slope should ensure adequate drainage without exceedng the 2 percent limit.

5. Long, steep grades should have level areas every 400 feet for the pedestrian to stop and rest. In areas where it is impossi-

1.16

Planning for Pedestrians

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

ble to avoid steep grades, an alternative route (such as an elevator in a nearby building) should be provided.

B. Walkways 6. Minimum unobstructed walkway width shall be 48 inches.

Exceptions may be made to a minimum of 36 inches because of unreasonable hardships such as Right-of-Way restrictions, natural barriers, or other existing conditions. Local agencies will decide what is an unreasonable hardship. For example, some jurisdictions are willing to allow light poles to reduce the width to 36 inches. The minimum width should be expanded when there is either a vertical barrier fronting the walkway or a vehicle travel lane. To understand how this requirement can be incorporated into the overall sidewalk design refer to Section 2.1, Sidewalk Design.

5’x8’ Bus Stop Pad

4’ accessible route Shelter

7. If a walkway is less than 60 inches (5 feet) wide there shall be a 60 inch x 120 inch (5 feet x 10 feet) passing space every 200 feet of length along the walkway (See Figure 1.27).

8. Objects mounted on walls or posts with leading edges above the standard sweep of canes (27 inches) and below the standard head room clearance (80 inches) would be limited to a 4 inch protrusion.

Figure 1.28: Accessibility requirements at bus stops (source: Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board)

9. At crossings, the installation of pedestrian bulbouts should be considered in areas with a concentration of disabled pedestrians to reduce crossing times and exposure to traffic.

Bulbouts and larger pedestrian ramps allow extra maneuvering space for those in wheelchairs.

10. Marked crosswalks are specified to be at least 96 inches wide, as recommended by the ADA Advisory Committee, which exceeds the 72 inch minimum specified in The Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).

11. Crossings that are unusual or uncommon, such as at mid-block locations and roundabouts, need particular design elements to assist disabled pedestrians to safely traverse the area, such as tactile warning strips and audible signals.

12. Adjacent to bus stops, create a 5’ by 8’ concrete pad (a minimum of 4” deep) that is free of all street level obstacles.

Street furnishings (except bus stop signs) such as benches, payphones, light posts, shelters, kiosks, and garbage receptacles should be set back a minimum of 4 feet from the curb (see Figure 1.28). The area should not exceed a two percent grade.

Planning for Pedestrians

1.17

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Recommended

Not Recommended for New Construction: (existing constrained situations only)

C. Ramps 13. ADA requires accessible routes on sites that slope more than 1:20 to be treated as ramps.

14. The maximum rise for any single run should be 30 inches.

15. Ramps must have handrails on both sides, edge protection, and intermediate level landings at least every 30 feet.

Preferred for radii of 5’

D. Curb Cut Ramps at Intersections 16. Curb ramps should align in the direction of crosswalks, with two per corner at each intersection and at right angles to the curb, rather than having one “diagonal” curb ramp per corner (see Figure 1.29).

Preferred for areas with landscaped area

17. Limit the counter slope of the gutter area or street at the foot of the curb ramp or blended transition to be 1:20 maximum.1 18. Require clear space of at least 48 by 48 inches, located beyond the curb line and wholly within crosswalks and out of the parallel traffic travel lane.

Preferred for radii >15’ Figure 1.29: Typical Curb Ramp Placements

19. Requirements specific to perpendicular/parallel curb ramps address the running slope (1:12 maximum and 1:48 minimum), cross slope (1:48 maximum), level landings at top or bottom (at least 48 by 48 inches), side flares (1:10 maximum slope), and barriers at drop-offs.

20. The bottom of the ramp should be flush with the grade.2 21. There is a requirement for a detectable warning surface 2 feet deep where the ramp, landing, or blended transition connects to a crosswalk without tactile clues. These surfaces should span the entire area where the curb drop-off is absent.3

Figure 1.30: Preferred driveway condition

Figure 1.31: “Dropped driveway” for constrained width situations only

1.18

Planning for Pedestrians

1

The National ADA Advisory Committee had recommended that the sum of the slope of the ramp and gutter or street be 11 percent or less, but the Board believes that the 1:20 specification, which is consistent with ADAAG, will be easier to understand and enforce.

2

This is the ADA requirement while the State of California’s Title 24 requires a 1/2 inch beveled lip at the bottom of curb ramps.

3

The National ADA Advisory Committee deliberated on whether to require detectable warnings at all curb ramps and blended transitions or only those which were the least distinguishable. One organization represented on the committee suggested that detectable warnings be required only where the ramp slope was 1:15 or less. The Board seeks comment on this issue as well as any research that supports slopes of 1:15 or steeper being sufficiently detectable by persons with vision impairments.

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

22. Curb ramps or full ‘at-grade’ cut-throughs 48 inches in width should be provided at channelization and pedestrian refuge islands.

23. Storm drainage inlets should be placed on the uphill side of the curb ramps to prevent standing water at corner.

E. Driveway Design 24. Slopes for driveways shall comply with those given in Figures 1.30 and 1.31.

Figure 1.32: Tactile Warning Strips

F. Textural, Audible, Vibrating and Visual Cues at Crossings 25. In areas with significant numbers of vision-impaired pedestrians, audible signals and Braille instructions at pushbuttons should be considered.

26. Tactile cues should be used where crossings occur in an unexpected location. ‘Wayfinding strips’ should extend between the expected and actual crossing location, while tactile bumps or grooves should be placed at either side of the crossing itself (see Figures 1.32 & 1.33).

27. Pedestrian pushbuttons should be installed at signalized intersections in accessible locations and located no higher than 36 inches on the support pole.

Figure 1.33: Tactile Wayfinding Strip

G. Surfaces 28. All surfaces should be stable, firm and slip-resistant.

29. Surface treatments which include irregular surfaces such as cobblestone, can be difficult to navigate and should be avoided within the primary walkway area.

30. Surface gaps or openings in pedestrian access routes would be limited to 1 inch in one dimension.4 31. Sand or small glass beads should be added to the paint or thermoplastic used at crosswalks to reduce the risk of slipping.

4

This specification does not work at rail tracks where gaps must be at least 2.5 inches to 3 inches to accommodate rail car wheel flanges. Attempts are being made to develop a “gap filler” device, but none have been successful.

More research is being pursued on this issue.

Planning for Pedestrians

1.19

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

32. The draft ADA guidelines would also require detectable warnings at the outside of each group of tracks that cross the pedestrian access route since flush surfaces at rail tracks will not provide a tactile cue to people with vision impairments.

Detectable warnings would not be required at tracks sharing vehicular ways, such as street car tracks in roadways, since curb ramps along roadways are also required to have detectable warnings.

1.20

Planning for Pedestrians

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

2. Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design As VTA’s Community Design and Transportation (CDT) Manual emphasizes, a multi-modal street serves both transportation and land use roles in a community. At the transportation level, the pedestrian must be given specific considerations to ensure safety and ease of mobility and accessibility. From the land use perspective, the street should not only provide an interesting and pleasant pedestrian experience, but should also connect people to desirable destinations such as services and entertainment.

This chapter provides guidelines related to designing street segments and intersections. It begins with a section on Sidewalk Design (Section 2.1) introducing the concept of the sidewalk as a “Pedestrian Realm” with specific zones for specific uses. Section 2.2, Matching Pedestrian Realms with Model Street Types incorporates particular pedestrian realm designs into the street type identification work completed in the CDT Manual. Section 2.3, Making Trade-Offs discusses various trade-offs necessary to create an adequate pedestrian realm within a constrained right-ofway. Section 2.4, Other Multi-Use Street Guidelines addresses additional considerations necessary to create truly multi-use street segments. The chapter concludes with Section 2.5, Traffic Calming, which contains illustrations of particular traffic calming measures that improve the comfort level for pedestrians.

2.1

Figure 2.1: In urban areas, sidewalks become not just a space for walking, but also an environment for lingering, and therefore require generous width.

Sidewalk Design

The sidewalk, referred to as part of the “pedestrian realm” in this document, is an important social space where people interact and walk together, wait for a bus, window shop, or have a cup of coffee at a cafe. The sidewalk must be wide enough to accommodate movement as well as the important social funcitons related to the land uses through which it runs. With the exception of pedestrian street crossings (discussed in detail in Section 3.1), it is the design and character of the sidewalk that determines the level of safety and accessibility for the pedestrian.

Figure 2.2: Even in quiet residential areas, sidewalks that are given appropriate design treatment can enhance private space with high-quality public space.

Considerations General Optimal sidewalk width varies with the type and amount of expected activity.

Existing excessive street right-of-way represents an opportunity to widen sidewalks and provide on-street parking, both of which significantly improve the pedestrian experience.

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

2.01

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Wider sidewalks and local access lanes serve as buffers between fast-moving traffic and abutting properties and make conditions more attractive for buildings to front the street.

Minimizing obstructions and conflict points, such as utility poles and driveways, improves the pedestrian experience.

Accessibility All sidewalks must be ADA compliant in dimension, surfacing and grading (except in extreme topographical conditions).

Figure 2.3: An attractive sidewalk includes enough width to support amenities such as street trees, bicycle racks, and landscaping.

New Development vs. Retrofit In many cases, existing sidewalk width is less than optimal.

Dimensions can be increased through acquisition of additional right-of-way, by zoning a larger setback requirement for new development, or through a reduction in curb-to-curb roadway width. On four-lane roads, curb-to-curb width can be reduced when traffic volumes are less than 12,000 to 15,000 vehicles per day by restriping a two- or three- lane roadway.

If travel lanes are more than 12 feet, road width can be reduced by creating 10-11 foot lanes.

New street right-of-way should balance the needs of all users.

Relation to Transit The “footprint” of and access to transit facilities such as bus shelters should be considered in the design of sidewalks.

Sidewalks must connect transit facilities within walking distance of the station or bus stop with adjacent uses.

VTA’s transit standards and guidelines should also be considered.

Relation to Context It is desirable for sidewalks to be on both sides of the street in urban contexts. In certain suburban conditions a sidewalk on one side may be adequate and in rural conditions a widened road shoulder may suffice.

Relation to Existing Guidelines and Practices Sidewalk dimensions specified in local agency street design guidelines, building codes, and zoning ordinances are often less than optimal and may need to be revised to provide adequate width.

Figure 2.4: Transit stops are most comfortable for waiting riders when they are incorporated into the design of the sidewalk and surrounding area.

2.02

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

Designers should coordinate with utility providers regarding the location of lines and cabinets.

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) recommends a minimum sidewalk width of 5’ for local streets with a planting strip, and 6’ where there is no planting strip. For arterials, the dimensions are 6’ and 8’ respectively. In the Central Busines District the recommended minimum is 10’, or wide enough to meet the desired level of service (Source: Guide for Planning, Design, and Operations of Pedestrian Facilities DRAFT, AASHTO, 2001).

Maintenance Consider maintenance and long-term appearance when selecting materials.

A. Determining a Width - Establishing “Zones” The Sidewalk Corridor is typically located within the street rightof-way between the curb and building face and/or property line.

The sidewalk corridor is composed of four distinct zones: the Edge Zone, the Furnishings Zone, the Throughway Zone and the Frontage Zone (see Figure 2.5).

Edge Furnishings Zone Zone

Throughway Zone

Frontage Zone

Figure 2.5: Pedestrian sidewalk zones.

Edge Zone The Edge Zone, sometimes referred to as the “Curb Zone,” is the interface between the roadway and the sidewalk. At a minimum this zone includes the 6-inch wide curb. In more active mixed-use areas with on-street parking, this zone should be a minimum of 1’6” this distance accommodates the door swing of a parked car to prevent conflict with elements within the Furnishing Zone (parking meters, however, can be placed in this zone). At transit stops with shelters, this zone should be widened to 4 feet to provide wheelchair access to the shelter (in constrained conditions, transit shelters are available with partially open sides allowing the edge zone to be reduced to 2’-6”). Providing a bulbout for the entire length of the transit stop is also an effective way to increase Edge Zone width.

Furnishings Zone The Furnishings Zone acts as a buffer between the active pedestrian walking area (Throughway Zone) and street traffic. Street trees, planting strips, street furniture, utility poles, sign poles, cabinets, phone booths, traffic signal cabinets, fire hydrants, bicycle racks and the like are consolidated in this zone to keep them from being obstacles in the Throughway Zone. Retail kiosks or stands are also appropriate in the Furnishnigs Zone. Planting in this zone must comply with the standards and guidelines listed in

Figure 2.6: A “well-zoned” sidewalk.

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

2.03

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Section 4.2C, Pedestrian Amenities and Comfort, particularly in the case of street tree well dimensions.

Installing pedestrian bulbouts (Section 3.2B, Pedestrian Bulbouts) is an effective way to increase sidewalk space in the Furnishings Zone.

Figure 2.7: Mountain View’s Castro Street features special paving in its on-street parking stalls, available to also use for outdoor seating.

Furnishings Zone dimensions should be based upon the speed of traffic and whether street parking is provided. If, for instance, no on-street parking is provided and traffic speeds are 30 mph or less, the Furnishings Zone dimension should be five foot six inches. For speeds exceeding 30 mph, an additional one foot of space should be added for every 5 mph increase in posted speed (referred to in the is document as the “Traffic Context Factor”).

Throughway Zone The Throughway Zone is intended for pedestrian travel only and should be entirely clear of obstacles, including driveway aprons.

Accessibility requires an absolute minimum of 4 feet in width in this zone for streets with low pedestrian volume, allowing opportunities to widen to 5 feet at least every 200 feet. For higher-volume streets that have met minimum requirements for all other zones, the preferred dimension is 6 to 8 feet. For very high pedestrian volume areas, additional width should be provided.

“Overhanging” elements such as awnings, store signage, bay windows, etc. may occupy this zone as long as there is a clear distance under them of at least 8 feet.

Frontage Zone The Frontage Zone is the area adjacent to the property line that may be defined by a building façade, landscaping, or a fence.

Generally pedestrians do not feel comfortable moving at a full pace directly along a wall, and because of this the minimum frontage zone should be 1’-6”. This is also the zone where pedestrians slow down to window shop, and exit and enter buildings.

Adjacent businesses may use this zone for outdoor displays and seating, and municipalities must ensure that there is adequate space to accommodate these uses without impeding the Throughway Zone.

Architectural elements that encroach into the street such as awnings, stairs, front stoops, planters, marquees and the like may also occupy this zone. These elements add vitality and visual interest to the street, but also must comply with local building codes and zoning ordinances.

Where no Furnishings Zone exists, elements that would normally be sited there such as benches, light poles, signals, trash cans, etc. may occupy the Frontage Zone to keep the Throughway Zone clear

2.04

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

and comply with ADA requirements. If traffic signal and light poles are to be located in the Frontage Zone rather than immediately adjacent to the curb, these poles require longer mastarms to project out into the street at the desired location.

Where the sidewalk passes a parking lot, a buffer, such as a hedge or a low wall, should be used to prevent parked vehicles from overhanging into the Frontage Zone and maintain a strong and more attractive frontage along the sidewalk (see Section 6.2D&E Parking Lot Landscaping and Screening).

B. Grades, Cross Slope, and Curb Cuts Walkways should not exceed a five percent (1:20) grade, as steeper grades can be difficult for persons with mobility problems to navigate. For sidewalks adjacent to streets that exceed this grade, handrails should be considered.

Figure 2.8: Accommodating elements such as transit shelters may require the Throughway Zone to be jogged. If outdoor seating is desired for restaurants and cafes in order to activate the street, guard rails can be used to separate the zones.

The cross slope is the slope measured perpendicular to the direction of travel and should facilitate proper drainage. Sidewalks should be designed with a 2 percent (1:50) cross slope, but not greater, in order to maintain a sufficiently level surface for wheelchair and walker users.

Curb cuts exist where a driveway crosses the sidewalk. At these locations there is potential for conflict between drivers and pedestrians and increased possibility that pedestrian mobility will be compromised. However, with good design, curb cuts have little impact on mobility. Figure 2.9 illustrates the preferred condition where the Throughway Zone is maintained across the entire driveway. The sloped portion of the driveway is located entirely within the Furnishings Zone. The “look” of the sidewalk (i.e. scoring pattern) is also maintained to indicate that although a vehicle can cross, this remains a pedestrian area.

Figure 2.9: Preferred driveway condition

For constrained conditions, Figure 2.10 shows a “dropped driveway” solution that meets ADA requirements. Once again, the sidewalk pattern is maintained across the length of the driveway. An alternate approach to the constrained condition is to provide a bypass walk at the top of the driveway, but this requires the pedestrian to make a slight detour and should only be considered in situations with steep grades or drainage issues.

C. Surfacing ADA requirements dictate that surfaces must be “stable, firm, and slip-resistant.” Generally, sidewalks are constructed of Portland cement concrete (PCC), which is durable and meets ADA criteria.

PCC can be given color and scored in a variety of patterns.

Figure 2.10: “Dropped driveway” for constrained width situations only

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

2.05

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Asphaltic concrete pavement (ACP) is an option in areas with low pedestrian volumes, but it is not as durable as PCC, tends to settle unevenly, and should generally be avoided.

Unit pavers, bricks, and tiles add a special character to sidewalks when used as either the field paving or as accents. Proper installation is the key to ensuring evenness. Care should also be taken to ensure that any special paving, particularly tile, is slip resistant.

Sidewalk Design Guidelines

Figure 2.11: Downtown Mountain View’s use of scored, colored concrete makes an attractive, functional, and durable sidewalk.

1. In commercial and mixed-use areas with storefronts close to the street the preferred width of a sidewalk is 13 to 18 feet.

This allows for pedestrian circulation and window-shopping.

The minimum possible width for new development should be ten feet. Widths over 13 feet provide space for pedestrian amenities, allow local business activity to spill out onto the sidewalk, and prevent vehicle traffic from dominating the pedestrian realm (see Section 2.2 for further guidance).

2. In residential areas sidewalks should be at least five feet wide and be separated from the street by a planting strip with a minimum width of six feet. Sidewalks in residential areas that may have more pedestrians, such as parks, schools, or neighborhood centers should have a 15-foot pedestrian realm (see Section 2.2 for further guidance).

3. Sidewalks should be provided on both sides of the street.

Exceptions are lower intensity residential neighborhoods where pedestrians can be safe walking in the street and areas where constrained right-of-ways do not allow for ADA accessible width on both sides of the street.

Figure 2.12: A “wandering” sidewalk detracts from an easily navigable pedestrian realm, adding distance to pedestrian trips, and confusing the visually impaired.

4. “Wandering” sidewalks (see Figure 2.12) should be avoided.

Pedestrians want to walk the shortest distance possible, and curving sidewalks can be disorienting for persons with visual impairments. Landscaping and other design treatments can achieve a more casual and rural atmosphere without requiring pedestrians to walk longer distances.

5. Pathways should be designed with materials that are stable, firm and slip-resistant; preferably Portland concrete cement (PCC).

6. The surface of the pathway should remain continuous even at driveways and maintain a continuous cross slope of no greater than two percent. This signals to the drivers that they are crossing the pedestrian realm and must yield accordingly.

2.06

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

7. To avoid the possibility of cars parking on sidewalks and impeding the pedestrian, box curbs should be used instead of rolled curbs (see Figure 2.13).

8. General maintenance, such as fixing potholes, sidewalk decay, damaged benches and other pedestrian amenities should be conducted regularly. Regular maintenance not only promotes physical safety but also indicates a level of care, which in turn improves a pedestrian's sense of security.

Figure 2.13: Rolled curbs allow vehicles to encroach upon the pedestrian realm, blocking the throughway and cultivating the perception that the space is dominated by cars.

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

2.07

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

2.2

Matching Sidewalks with Model Street Types

Different sidewalk widths are appropriate in different street environments. No sidewalk discussion, then, is complete without a discussion of the operational and design characteristics of various street types. Table 2.1 identifies street types based on operational characteristics and design parameters. The street types developed for these guidelines are intended to match as closely as possible with those street types developed in Chapter 4 of the CDT Manual, as well as prevalent street types around the county. Each street type is briefly discussed, and accompanied by diagrams indicating street and sidewalk dimensions.

Figure 2.14: Multi-modal streets accommmodate many modes of transportation in the public right-ofway. This street includes a separated bike path.

In addition, VTA’s Bicycle Technical Guidelines should be referenced with relation to bicycle treatments. Bike lanes are shown in the model street types combined with parking lanes for clarity.

Bike lanes should be separately striped and a minimum of five feet in width. Parking lanes can vary from seven to eight feet, with eight feet providing increased safety for the cyclist.

Table 2.1: Model Street Types Neighborhood Streets

Operational Characteristics

Volume (vehicles per day) Typical Speed (mph)

Design Parameters

Adjacent Land Uses

Number of Lanes Overall R.O.W. Width

District/Downtown Streets

Corridor Streets

Minor Residential

Major Residential

Mixed Use Street

Main Street

R&D Office Park/ Industrial Street

Community Street

Regional Street

Commercial Street

Urban Roads

< 2000

2000-8000

<10,000

9,000 -15,000

varies

7000 - 15,000 +

20,000 +

15,000 +

15,000 +

15-25

25

25

25

15-30

25 - 40

30 +

30-35

35-40

Office/Indstrial

Mixed Use or Residential

Mixed Use

varies

Low Ped Intensive Uses

Residential

Residential

Mixed Use

“Highest Intensity” Mixed Use

2

2-3

2-4

2-4

2-3

3-4

6

53ʼ - 57ʼ

92ʼ - 94ʼ

72ʼ - 110ʼ

78ʼ - 118ʼ

64ʼ - 88ʼ

120ʼ +

136ʼ - 140ʼ

110 ‘ - 122ʼ

62ʼ - 122ʼ

Lane Width

10ʼ

11ʼ - 12ʼ

11ʼ

10ʼ

11ʼ - 20ʼ

11ʼ

11ʼ (12ʼ bus only)

11ʼ

11ʼ - 12ʼ

On-street Parking

yes

yes

yes

yes

yes/no

yes

yes

yes/no

no

15ʼ

10ʼ low-intensity 13ʼ preferred

15ʼ min + TCF1

13ʼ w/ parking 15ʼ w/o parking

15ʼ

Pedestrian Realm Width

9ʼ6” 11ʼ6”

16ʼ - 18ʼ

12ʼ +

15ʼ min + TCF1

“Traffic Context Factor” (TCF) is a means for mitigating the impact of traffic speed on the pedestrian realm. The TCF recommends a 1ʼ increase in the Pedestrian Realm for each 5 mph incremental increase over 30 mph in Typical Speed (i.e. a steet with a 35 mph Typical Speed would require a 1ʼ increase in the Pedestrian Realm over the baseline recommendation

1

2.08

3-6 lanes w/ 2-6 lanes w/ turn lane or median turn lane or median

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

A. Neighborhood Street Types Minor and Major Residential Streets These streets serve primarily residential areas.

On Minor Residential Streets, the emphasis is on walking, bicycling, neighborhood livability and access to homes; traffic is typically slower than on other street types. Major Residential Streets are collectors and entries to neighborhoods. Traffic speeds and volumes are higher, but equal emphasis is given to creating a safe and comfortable pedestrian realm.

Figure 2.15: Pedestrian realm for Major Residential streets

Table 2.2: Neighborhood Street Types

Design Parameters

Operational Characteristics

Neighborhood Streets

Volume (vehicles per day) Typical Speed (mph) Adjacent Land Uses Number of Lanes Overall R.O.W. Width

Minor Residential

Major Residential

< 2000

2000-8000

15-25

25

Residential

Residential

2

2-3

53ʼ - 57ʼ

92ʼ - 94ʼ

Lane Width

10ʼ

11ʼ - 12ʼ

On-street Parking

yes

yes

9ʼ6” - 11ʼ6”

15ʼ

Pedestrian Realm Width

Figure 2.16: Pedestrian Realm for Minor Residential streets

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

2.09

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

B. District/Downtown Street Types Mixed-Use Streets Mixed-Use Streets are located in higher-intensity, mixed-use areas such as downtowns and neighborhood centers. Traffic volume is generally moderate and emphasis is on slowing traffic and creating multi-modal streets that serve as gathering places for people. Mixed Use Streets are designed with special amenities to promote pedestrian, bicycle and transit travel.

A minimum median width of 16 feet has been established to allow a six-foot minimum pedestrian refuge island along with a ten-foot turning lane at the intersections. Pedestrian refuge islands are recommended for streets with two or more lanes in each direction, except in cases where design speeds are below 25 m.p.h., allowing for comfortable pedestrian crossings (see Section 3.2D, Pedestrian Refuge Islands).

Figures 2.17: Pedestrian Realm for Mixed-Use Streets (2-lane configuration)

Table 2.3: Mixed-Use and Main Street Types

Design Parameters

Operational Characteristics

District/Downtown Streets

Figures 2.18: Pedestrian Realm for Mixed-Use Streets (transit configuration

2.10

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

Volume (vehicles per day) Typical Speed (mph)

Mixed Use Street

Main Street

<10,000

9,000 -15,000

25

25

Mixed Use

“Highest Intensity” Mixed Use

2-4

2-4

72ʼ - 110ʼ

78ʼ - 120ʼ

Lane Width

11ʼ

10ʼ

On-street Parking

yes

yes

10ʼ low-intensity 13ʼ preferred

16ʼ - 18ʼ

Adjacent Land Uses Number of Lanes Overall R.O.W. Width

Pedestrian Realm Width

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Main Streets Main Streets are Mixed-Use Streets that are within the â&#x20AC;&#x153;highest-intensityâ&#x20AC;? areas of the county; areas with the most pedestrian activity, such as shopping streets, entertainment districts and transit stations. These streets can provide a sense of identity and community, and therefore should be designed to be easily readable. Main Streets typically carry a larger volume of vehicular traffic than standard Mixed-Use Streets.

However, traffic speeds remain low because the increased traffic is related to access to local uses. Due to the higher pedestrian volume, these are the streets with the greatest area dedicated to the pedestrian realm. They accommodate outdoor displays, seating, landscape features and other pedestrian amenities.

Figures 2.19: Pedestrian Realm for Main Streets (2-lane configuration)

Figures 2.20: Pedestrian Realm for Main Streets (transit and 4-lane configuration)

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

2.11

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Industrial/R&D Office Streets Industrial/R&D Office Streets serve industrial areas and office parks. While these streets may not see high amounts of sustained activity, they do experience surges during commute and lunch periods. Employee-serving retail attract pedestrian activity from nearby employment sites. The design of Industrial/R&D Office Streets should accomodate these users in addition to vehicular traffic. Within industrial areas that have high volumes of truck traffic, street trees should only be planted when on-street parking is present in order to protect the trees from passing trucks. When no on-street parking is present, lower-lying landscaping should be used in the furnishing/planting strips. In R&D office park contexts where intensive landscaping is desirable, the furnishing/planting strip can be increased in dimension. For both street types, if there is off-street parking directly abutting the sidewalk, then a two foot planting strip within the Frontage Zone should be included.

Figures 2.21: Pedestrian Realm for Industrial/R&D Office Streets (with on-street parking)

Table 2.4: Industrial/R&D Office Streets District/Downtown Streets

Design Parameters

Operational Characteristics

R&D Office Park/ Industrial Street

Figures 2.22: Pedestrian Realm for Industrial/R&D Office Streets (no on-street parking)

2.12

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

Volume (vehicles per day)

varies

Typical Speed (mph)

15-30

Adjacent Land Uses Number of Lanes

Office/Indstrial 2-3

Overall R.O.W. Width

70ʼ - 88ʼ

Lane Width

11ʼ - 20ʼ

On-street Parking Pedestrian Realm Width

yes/no 12ʼ +

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

C. Corridor Street Types Community Streets Community Streets are arterials that connect neighborhoods with major destinations such as downtowns, retail areas, and entertainment centers. They serve double-duty, both moving traffic and providing often-visited public space.

Community Streets are generally 2 to 4 lanes and balance multi-modal functions, on-street parking, local access and a high level of street connectivity. The Community Street is potentially an important gathering place for the neighborhoods through which it runs and therefore requires a generous pedestrian realm to accommodate amenities. Medians providing pedestrian refuge are important on Community Streets due to the higher traffic speed and volume. The pedestrian realm should be increased proportionally to the speed of the traffic. The “Traffic Context Factor” (TCF) reccomends a one foot increase in the pedestrian realm for every 5 mph increment increase over 30 mph.

Figures 2.23: Pedestrian Realm for Community Streets

Table 2.5: Community Streets Corridor Streets

Design Parameters

Operational Characteristics

Community Street Volume (vehicles per day) Typical Speed (mph) Adjacent Land Uses Number of Lanes Overall R.O.W. Width

7000 - 15,000 + 25 - 40 Mixed Use or Residential 3-4 120ʼ +

Lane Width

11ʼ

On-street Parking

yes

Pedestrian Realm Width

15ʼ min + TCF

Figures 2.24: Pedestrian Realm for Community Streets (transit configuration)

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

2.13

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Regional Streets Regional Streets consist of four or more vehicle travel lanes and, like Community Streets, are important traffic arterials and service a variety of land uses (e.g. El Camino Real). Regional Streets are generally wider than Community Streets (4-6 lanes) and carry a greater proportion of through traffic, despite similar adjacent land uses. The level of local access and connectivity with other streets may vary. A double median boulevard configuration that separates faster through traffic from slower local traffic may be desirable. The pedestrian realm should be as generous as it is on the Community Street, not only to provide pedestrian amenities, but also to serve as a buffer pedestrians and fastmoving traffic. The TCF applies to the Regional Street as well.

Figures 2.25: Pedestrian Realm for Regional Streets (transit configuration)

Table 2.6: Regional Streets

Corridor Streets

Design Parameters

Operational Characteristics

Regional Street

Figures 2.26: Pedestrian Realm for Multi-Way Boulevards

2.14

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

Volume (vehicles per day) Typical Speed (mph) Adjacent Land Uses Number of Lanes Overall R.O.W. Width Lane Width On-street Parking Pedestrian Realm Width

20,000 + 30 + Mixed Use 6 136ʼ - 140ʼ 11ʼ (12ʼ bus only) yes 15ʼ min + TCF

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Commercial Streets Commercial Streets serve corridors with large amounts of adjacent commercial land uses generally set back from the street (referred to as “auto-oriented suburban strip commercial”). To best serve these uses, Commercial Streets emphasize convenient vehicular traffic movement and access to adjacent uses. To best serve these uses, on-street parking may or may not be present. Pedestrian activity on such streets is generally fairly low, but the pedestrian realm should still be generous enough to provide a buffer - particularly where there is no on-street parking.

Figures 2.27: Pedestrian Realm for Commercial Streets (with onstreet parking)

Table 2.7: Commercial Streets Corridor Streets

Design Parameters

Operational Characteristics

Commercial Street Volume (vehicles per day)

15,000 +

Typical Speed (mph)

30-35

Adjacent Land Uses

varies

Number of Lanes Overall R.O.W. Width Lane Width On-street Parking Pedestrian Realm Width

3-6 lanes w/ turn lane or median 110 ‘ - 122ʼ 11ʼ yes/no 13ʼ w/ parking 15ʼ w/o parking

Figures 2.28: Pedestrian Realm for Commercial Streets (no on-street parking)

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

2.15

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Urban Roads Urban Roads, also known as arterials, carry significant vehicle traffic at moderate to high speeds and volumes while providing for some transit, bicycle and pedestrian travel. Adjacent land uses are varied, but generally are characterized by low levels of pedestrian trafffic.

Arterials have no on-street parking and varying levels of local access and connectivity with other streets. Arterials are designed for through service transit, with limited or no amenities at transit stops. A generous pedestrian realm provides adequate buffering.

Figures 2.29: Pedestrian Realm for Urban Roads

Table 2.8: Urban Roads Corridor Streets

Design Parameters

Operational Characteristics

Urban Roads

2.16

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

Volume (vehicles per day) Typical Speed (mph) Adjacent Land Uses

Number of Lanes Overall R.O.W. Width Lane Width

15,000 + 35-40 Low Ped Intensive Uses 2-6 lanes w/ turn lane or median 62ʼ - 122ʼ 11ʼ - 12ʼ

On-street Parking

no

Pedestrian Realm Width

15ʼ

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

2.3

Making Trade-offs - Using a “Road Diet” to Create Additional Right-of-Way

The vast majority of streets in Santa Clara County are within existing rights-of-way, creating a perception that improvements to the pedestrian realm are not feasible due to spatial constraints.

Improvements to the pedestrian realm, however, do not necessarily entail acquiring additional public right-of-way. Often, the additional width for sidewalks can be found in resizing travel, turning and parking lanes. Figure 2.31 illustrates two cross sections: the first is a “typical” section for a four-lane urban collector street with a center median/turning lane; the second is the same rightof-way reconfigured to allow 13-foot pedestrian realms.

Figure 2.30: Streets with more travel lane width than necessary contain right-of-way that could be redistributed to increase sidewalk width.

Making decisions about the right-of-way trade-off between the pedestrian realm and other uses requires a clear understanding of the type and function of the street.

As an example of assessing trade-offs and priorities, one can look at the Main Street type. Because the function of the street is to emphasize pedestrian access to adjacent uses and create a vital community “place,” the higher priority elements are wide sidewalks including a frontage zone wide enough for window shopping and a generous furniture/landscape zone.

Lower priority elements include the number and width of travel lanes, designated bike Typical Right of Way - 116' lanes (because at lower speeds bicyclists can safely be in the flow of traffic), and central medians.

For pedestrian-oriented streets such as the Main Street, medians might be considered a lower priority. Aesthetics aside, the primary benefit of a central median is that it can be an effective pedestrian refuge island at crossings. But the lower speeds and fewer lanes associated with a Main Street would not warrant such a refuge island. In an already pedestrian-friendly environment, the value added by a central median is negligable if weighed against other investments in the pedestrian realm, such as widening the sidewalk. A central median housing a pedestrian refuge island is better-suited to wider streets with more than two lanes in each direction and/or where traffic speeds exceed 30 mph.

Walk

Park

Travel

Travel

Center/ Median

Travel

Travel

Park

Walk

5'

8'

22'

13'

14'

13'

22'

8'

5'

Reconfigured Right of Way - 116'

Walk

13'

Park Bike

7'

5'

Travel

Travel

Center/ Median

Travel

Travel

10.5'

11.5'

16' *

11.5'

10.5'

Bike Park

5'

7'

Walk

13'

* Includes a 10' turn lane and 6' pedestrian refuge island

Figure 2.31: Increasing pedestrian facilities within an existing right-of-way

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

2.17

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

2.4

Other Multi-Use Street Guidelines

A. Pedestrians and Bicyclists: Maintaining a Safe Coexistence

Figure 2.32: This set of bike racks in downtown Palo Alto provides convenient bike parking while preserving a wide pedestrian thoroughway.

“Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning” is often separate from planning for motorized modes of transportation, thereby grouping these two modes almost by default. While an alliance between pedestrian and bicycle advocates is beneficial in advocating for designs to slow vehicles, there also exists conflict. The conflict lies in the fact that bicycles operate like vehicles, with speeds far greater than pedestrians, which can pose a serious hazard to both.

The following guidelines are intended to resolve potential safety and design conflicts between pedestrians and bicycles, and can help in designing projects that improve the environment for both modes.

Guidelines

Figure 2.33: Separating bicyclists from pedestrians avoids conflicts arising from their speed differential, especially important on streets such as this one in Mountain View, where the sidewalk is not wide enough to accomodate both modes.

1. In most cases, the appropriate location for cyclists along a street is within the bike lane, shoulder, or mixed-flow travel lane in the curb-to-curb area of the right-of-way. Where traffic volumes are lower, mixed flow can occur, while busier streets necessitate the designation of bicycle lanes. Designs must comply with the state highway design standards and with those developed in VTA’s Bicycle Technical Guidelines (1999).

2. In cases where speeds exceed 50 mph and dedicated bicycle lanes may be unsafe, a multiuse ped/bike path should be used.

The preferred path width is 12 feet with striping and signage to indicate direction of travel and who should yield to whom.

3. Efforts should be made to educate the users of multi-use paths about safe interactions between bicyclists and pedestrians. Funding may be available for such efforts from a variety of sources, especially if conceived of as public health initiatives.

Figure 2.34: Where paths are shared because of narrow rights-of-way, bicyclists can temporarily become pedestrians.

2.18

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

4. Safety signage should be installed at intersections of multiuse paths to warn cross-traffic and should indicate who yields to whom (refer to Chapter 1000, commonly referred to as “Who Has the Right of Way”, of Caltrans’ Highway Design Manual for standards).

5. If right-of-way is constrained and traffic volumes are high, enhanced bike access on a parallel alternative route should be developed.

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

6. In areas of high pedestrian activity, including transit stops, schools, and playgrounds, bicyclists should be clearly warned to slow down and signage should indicate who yields to whom.

7. Bicycle racks and lockers should be located in convenient, well-lit areas, clearly visible from primary entrances, and no further from an entrance than the closest non-disabled-designated auto parking stall. Bicycle parking should not interfere with pedestrian traffic, and should be protected from potential damage by motor vehicles (refer to VTA’s Bicycle Technical Guidelines(1999) for a detailed discussion).

B. On-Street Parking Considerations On-street parking is desirable in commercial districts because it increases available parking, provides direct access to businesses and bolsters street vitality. On-street parking is also an effective way to narrow the street and provide the necessary side “friction” to slow vehicles. For these reasons it is listed as a traffic calming measure in Section 2.5. Another benefit is the buffering effect created between the travelway and the sidewalk. In fact, on-street parking can be thought of as part of the pedestrian realm.

Figure 2.35: The striping on this street in Mountain View gives bicyclists their own space and maintains a visually narrow travel lane.

Guidelines 1. Parallel parking stalls need to be wide enough for vehicle occupants to move around cars without forcing them into the stream of traffic. Typical dimensions of 8’ by 20’ are recommended for on-street parking stalls. Individual stalls should be marked to ensure efficient use of available space. A combination parking and bicycle lane should have width of 13’ which can be reduced to 12’ in constrained situations, but the bike lane should not be less than 5’. Both should be striped to reduce the street’s perceived width.

Figure 2.36: On-street parking enhances the walking environment by creating an effective buffer between pedestrians and passing traffic.

2. To ensure pedestrian visibility at intersections, on street parking should be restricted 20’ from intersections (and midblock crossings) on streets with speeds less than 30 mph, 50’ for streets with speeds 30 – 45 mph and 100’ for speeds over 45 mph. (see Section 3.1B, Sight Distance).

3. For perpendicular and angled parking stalls adjacent to sidewalks, wheel stops or curbing should be used to restrict vehicle overhang onto the sidewalk.

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

2.19

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

C. Site Access Controls Conflict points between autos and pedestrians occur not only at street crossings, but also at driveways where autos cross pedestrian paths. Auto-oriented uses, such as filling stations, often have curb cuts along most of their street frontage for convenience to the auto, creating a hostile environment for pedestrians. Site access control aims to implement restrictions on the extent and location of curb cuts to minimize conflicts with pedestrian routes.

Considerations Figure 2.37: Excessive curb cuts and driveways erode the pedestrian environment.

Barrier

General Amongst adjacent properties there is an opportunity to consolidate driveways and reduce overall parking requirements by interconnecting parking lots and sharing parking among uses.

A street serves two transport purposes: moving traffic through a neighborhood and providing access to local destinations. It is possible within a wide right-of-way (i.e., greater than 100 feet) to separate the two uses by creating side access lanes.

Side access lanes are separated from the central, throughtraffic lanes by medians. They are generally 10 to 11 feet wide, and can accommodate slow moving autos and on-street parking. Adjacent sidewalks therefore are considerably more pedestrian-friendly.

Figure 2.38: The conventional parking and access configuration isolates adjacent properties and creates unnedded driveways.

Through Access

Accessibility Multiple curb cuts can have a â&#x20AC;&#x153;roller coasterâ&#x20AC;? effect on sidewalks making them difficult and uncomfortable to navigate.

New Development vs. Retrofit Existing parking lots can be retrofitted by removing barriers separating the parking lots and combining driveways.

In new development, existing adjacent parking can be taken into account during site design and parking calculation.

Relation to Transit

Figure 2.39: This parking and access configuration features fewer access points and a connection between parking lots.

2.20

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

Reducing the number and length of curb cuts along existing streets can create more space for transit facilities, on-street parking, street trees, street furniture, etc.

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Guidelines 1. Curb cuts for two-way traffic should not be wider than 24 feet, except those that provide frequent access for large trucks or semi-tractor trailers. These should not be wider than 30 feet.

For recommended curb cut design details, refer to Section 2.1C, Grades, Cross Slopes, and Curb Cuts.

2. In non-residential, pedestrian-supportive areas, there should be no more than one curb cut per 200 linear feet of street frontage.

3. Parking lots in adjacent properties should be interconnected whenever possible to reduce the number of curb cuts, as described in Figures 2.38 and 2.39.

Figure 2.40: This driveway curb conveys to the driver that the vehicle is crossing through pedestrian space.

4. A boulevard configuration that separates through-traffic from local traffic should be considered on arterial streets with large amounts of through-traffic and local traffic, or uses that front directly onto the street, thereby allowing the pedestrian to walk adjacent to slower-moving traffic.

5. A 5 foot minimum width of sidewalk with no more than a 2 percent cross slope should be provided across all curb cut access points. (See Section 2.1 for more information on sidewalk design)

D. Stormwater Management Facilities “Green Streets” Pedestrian-oriented street facilities can be designed in such a way to achieve water management goals as well as pedestrian goals. In particular, the same landscaping components of a street that add to pedestrian comfort can also perform stormwater retention and treatment functions, contributing to better flood control and water quality. Planting strips, planted medians, tree wells, and other planted areas can reduce urban runoff by retaining stormwater. The soils in these planted areas also remove pollutants from stormwater as it filters through or runs off, providing natural water treatment. Even paved areas, if designed with porous surfaces, can be used to improve water management.

Figure 2.41: Pedestrian access can be integrated into a “Green Streets” strategy.

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

2.21

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

In such “Green Streets” designs, planted areas are placed at lower elevation than the surrounding streets and sidewalks so that stormwater can gather there. Curbs that separate planted areas from paved areas include periodic gaps for drainage, and drainage sewers are either modified or eliminated to allow for on-site filtration. Traditional paving materials such as concrete are substituted with permeable materials that allow some water to infiltrate through to the underlying soil base.

For more information, please refer to Green Streets: Innovative Solutions for Stormwater and Stream Crossings (Portland Metro, 2002).

2.5

Traffic Calming

Vehicle speeds have a dramatic effect on the pedestrian experience. The faster prevailing speeds are, the less comfortable the street is for pedestrians to walk along, and the less safe the street is for pedestrians to cross. Management of vehicle speeds, therefore, is integral to a good pedestrian environment.

Figure 2.42: This traffic calming slow-point in Sunnyvale, denoted by a planted sidewalk extension, is combined with a mid-block crossing.

Some recommendations for pedestrian-friendly prevailing vehicle speeds are listed in Table 2.1 under the Model Street Types section. In areas with particularly high-pedestrian activity, speeds below those listed are appropriate, down to 15-20 mph. The California Vehicle Code allows decreasing the limit to these speeds in business or residential districts where the roadway is less than 25 feet wide.

Three methods for speed management are often cited as important to perform in concert: education, enforcement, and engineering. The first two are somewhat beyond the scope of local street planning and engineering functions, but should nonetheless be pursued in partnership with those responsible for carrying out such functions.

The last includes a set of techniques involving placement of physical elements in the roadway right-of-way summarized in Table 2.9. This set of techniques, collectively called “traffic calming”, seeks to slow traffic and increase driver awareness of pedestrians.

Traffic calming seeks to improve the pedestrian environment by: slowing traffic to below 25-30 mph; encouraging good driver behavior; giving more space and priority to cyclists and pedestrians; separating pedestrian routes from vehicle traffic; reducing the number of accidents involving pedestrians; and reducing the severity of all accidents.

2.22

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Considerations Accessibility Traffic calming features must take all aspects of ADA into consideration, as the resulting streets and pedestrian circulation may not be â&#x20AC;&#x153;typical,â&#x20AC;? which can make them particularly confusing to those with visual impairments.

Implementation and Relation to Current Standards and Practices The use of traffic calming features is common in the traffic engineering community. Although initially focused more on residential neighborhoods, use of these techniques is expanding to arterial and collector streets where pedestrian travel is common.

Figures 2.43: Traffic calming circles slow vehicles at intersections and provide opportunities for special landscaping.

Limits of Speed Limits New Development vs. Retrofit Many traffic calming elements are specifically designed for existing streets and can be retrofitted into existing right-ofway.

Guidelines 1. Prior to implementing traffic-calming, effort must be spent on establishing neighborhood consensus to ensure an equitable strategy that does not provide benefits for some residents at the expense of others.

2. The initial change is to narrow the width of the street given over to automobiles. In pedestrian-dominated areas, the recommended maximum travel lane width is ten feet six inches.

3. Where speeds of less than 25 mph are desired, such as within residential neighborhoods, traffic calming features may need to be continuous (landscaping or narrowed lanes) or positioned as close as every 200-300 feet (speed undulations or horizontal deflections) to deter unnecessary acceleration and braking.

4. Signage should be used to remind drivers that they are entering a traffic calming zone, and that a posted low speed limit should be maintained.

One obvious way to reduce vehicle speeds is to reduce the posted speed limit. Less obvious, however, are the legal and on-the-ground implications of doing so. Legally, local jurisdictions are bound by law to ensure that rules are not changed arbitrarily or for the purpose of collecting traffic fine revenues. To ensure fairness, engineering studies must be performed to establish the extent of the speeding problem and engineering justification for reducing the posted limit. On the ground, it has been found that motorists tend to drive at the speed that they judge to be safe, regardless of the posted limit, and therefore, lower posted speeds should be combined with engineering changes, focused education, and enforcement efforts to achieve the desired outcome.

5. Traffic calmed areas should be well-lit to further the effectiveness of the measures used.

6. Traffic calming features should be integrated with aesthetic improvements, such as landscaping, that will make the street attractive and inviting for pedestrians and cyclists.

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

2.23

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Description and Application

Speed Tables and Raised Intersections Promotes smooth, slow-speed, traffic flow at locations with pedestrian zones or crossings.

Raises the surface of the road over a short distance, generally to the height of the adjacent curb. Useful in central business districts in high pedestrian-use areas or at interfaces between arterials and entrances to pedestrian supportive areas. Not to be confused with speed bumps, which are shorter in length, have profiles that produce unnecessarily low speed reductions, are uncomfortable for both vehicle occupants and bicyclists, and not recommended.

Example Configuration

Type

Table 2.9: Traffic Calming Measures

Construction note: The most common type of speed table is 3 - 4 inches high and 22 feet long in the direction of travel, with 6-foot ramps at the ends and a 10-foot field on top. This design generally produces an 85th percentile speed of 25 to 30 mph, although by varying dimensions, a desired target speed can be achieved.

Raised speed table

Detail of potential drainage solution.

2.24

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

Sidewalk Bulbouts

Sidewalks are extended into the street to narrow the travel lanes and reduce the radius of corners at intersections. Narrowing the street also reduces pedestrian crossing distances. For more detail, refer to Section 3.2B, Pedestrian Crossingsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Bulbouts, for further discussion about bulb-outs.

Pedestrian bulbout at an intersection

Pedestrian bulbout combined with a raised speed table

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Description and Application

Type

Table 2.9: Traffic Calming Measures (continued)

Pedestrian Refuge Islands Pedestrian refuges in wide or busy streets improve safety for pedestrians and vehicles.

They are defined as areas within an intersection or between lanes of traffic where pedestrians may safely wait until vehicular traffic clears, allowing them to complete a street crossing. These islands are particularly helpful for older and disabled pedestrians unable to cross the street during the available signal time. Many existing streets with medians do not include pedestrian refuge areas.

Providing refuges should be considered as an important part of future retrofit projects.

See Section 3.2D, Pedestrian Crossingsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; Pedestrian Refuge Islands, for more detail.

Traffic Calming Circles Located at street intersections, traffic calming circles are generally between 10 and 20 feet in diameter and are used to slow traffic by forcing cars to drive around them. The circles have a raised curb edge and landscaping to provide visual interest and reduce the length of vistas down streets, which can also help to slow traffic.

In areas with high truck or bus traffic volumes, mountable curbs can help with large-vehicle navigation while maintaining the traffic calming effect.

Example Configuration

Pedestrian refuge island

Traffic calming circle with landscaping

A "corral-style" pedestrian refuge island encourages pedestrians to look in the direction of oncoming traffic.

Diagram adapted from the San Diego Street Design Manual.

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

2.25

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Example Configuration

Description and Application

Type

Table 2.9: Traffic Calming Measures (continued)

Roundabouts Roundabouts are circular intersections that are used to slow traffic, maintain adequate capacity and provide for safer pedestrian crossings at medium- to high-volume intersections. A raised center island slows traffic and provides a visually interesting gateway element. A roundaboutâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s more formal system of traffic control, and subsequently higher traffic through-put, distinguish it from a neighborhood traffic circle.

Roundabouts require tactile strips for the sight impaired. See Section 3.1E, Intersection and Crossing Designâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;Modern Roundabouts, for more detail.

On-street parking has been shown to help moderate traffic speeds. Pedestrians also tend to feel safer walking on sidewalks adjacent to parked vehicles, as the solid buffer created between the sidewalks and moving traffic on the street provides a sense of security. Where possible, it is also desirable to have additional clearance between the edge of curb and primary sidewalk area to accommodate opening and closing car doors.

Roundabout with splitter islands, yield control, and center island

z

2.26

On-Street Parking

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

On-street parking buffers the sidewalk from the street.

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Example Configuration

Description and Application

Type

Table 2.9: Traffic Calming Measures (continued)

Slow Points Slow points are mid-block locations along streets where physical elements are placed to necessitate speed reductions and facilitate pedestrian crossings.

Chokers. Raised curbing and landscaping on either side within the right-of-way narrow the travel lanes. A raised island or street tree may also be placed in the middle of the street.

Chicanes. Variation on chokers in which raised curbing is offset and intended to cause vehicles to turn slightly, thereby necessitating speed reductions.

Chicanes reduce vehicle speeds by forcing cars to turn slightly.

Neighborhood "gateway" choker

Note: slow points have implications for bicyclists, and should be designed with consideration for bicycling conditions along the street.

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

2.27

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

2.28

Multi-Use Street and Pedestrian Realm Design

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

3. Street Crossings 3.1

Intersection Design and Operation

Intersections are often the most vital and vibrant areas along a street. They are also the areas where the paths of people and vehicles come together, making them a challenging part of the pedestrian network. Intersections must therefore be designed with pedestrian safety and accessibility in mind. This section describes how intersections can be made more pedestrian friendly by reducing crossing distances and improving visibility for both pedestrians and drivers. Detailed discussion of specific crossing designs is included in Section 3.2, Pedestrian Crossings.

At a larger planning scale, the spacing of intersections or crossing points is an important part of creating a pedestrian supportive environment. For additional information, refer to Chapter 4 of VTAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Community Design and Transportation Manual.

Figure 3.1: Bulbouts at this intersection provide additional pedestrian space and reduce crossing distance.

Refer to Figure 3.2 for the elements of an ideal pedestrian-friendly intersection and Table 3.1 for identifying appropriate locations for pedestrian crossing enhancements. Specific guidelines concerning access to transit are included in Section 5.3, Pedestrian Crossings of LRT Tracks.

K

B

C

F D E

J A

G

I

A. Pedestrian bulb-outs B. Wheelchair access ramps C. Pedestrian refuge islands D. Curb radii no greater than 15' (25' for transit vehicles) E. Special paving in crosswalks F. Benches and other amenities G. Pedestrian-scale lighting H. 10'6" travel lanes I. Building articulation J. Street trees K. Accessible transit stops

H

Figure 3.2: Elements that make for a pedestrian-friendly intersection

Street Crossings

3.01

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Considerations General Properly designed intersections: Encourage pedestrian to cross at intersections, rather than jaywalking; Minimize crossing distance, time and exposure to potential conflicts; Make pedestrians as visible as possible; Make pedestrian actions as predictable as possible; and

Figure 3.3: Wide intersections are generally uncomfortable for pedestrians, and require design retrofits to become pedestrian supportive.

Slow vehicular traffic to allow drivers more reaction time.

Attempts to prevent pedestrian crossings at intersections discourage walking as a mode of travel and often result in dangerous illegal crossings.

Accessibility Pedestrian facilities including curb cut ramps, signal equipment, etc., must comply with ADA standards and take the entire range of disabilities into account.

Table 3.1: Pedestrian Crossing Enhancement Guidelines Matrix

Operational Characteristics

Neighborhood Streets

Volume (vehicles per day) Typical Speed (mph) Adjacent Land Uses

Minor Residential

Major Residential

< 2000 15-25 Residential

District/Downtown Streets Mixed Use Street

R&D Office Park/ Industrial Street

Community Street

Regional Street

Commercial Street

Urban Roads

2000-8000

<10,000

9,000 -15,000

varies

7000 - 15,000 +

20,000 +

15,000 +

15,000 +

25

25

25

15-30

25 - 40

30 +

30-35

35-40

Mixed Use

“Highest Intensity” Mixed Use

Office/Indstrial

Mixed Use or Residential

varies

Low Ped Intensive Uses

Residential

Appropriate Design Measures Special Crosswalk Markings Overhead Signage= Bulbouts Midblock Crossings Refuge Islands Pedestrian Corrals In-Pavement Lights Modern Roundabouts Over/Underpasses

Most Appropriate

3.02

Street Crossings

Corridor Streets

Main Street

Moderately Appropriate

May be appropriate with mitigating circumstances

Mixed Use

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

New Development vs. Retrofit Many pedestrian enhancements such as signal devices, striping, refuge islands, and bulbouts can be retrofitted within existing right-of-way.

When retrofitting an existing intersection, utilities such as lighting, electrical, and storm drains will need to be incorporated into the design or relocated.

New, more pedestrian-friendly, forms of traffic control such as roundabouts may require more right-of-way than existing intersections have to offer.

Wider turning radii increase crossing distance

40' radius (not preferred)

Relation to Context The design of an intersection is dependent upon the street types and characteristics of adjacent development. Refer to Table 3.1 for appropriate intersection design considerations (detailed further in Section 3.2, Pedestrian Crossings) with street types outlined in Section 2.2, Matching Sidewalks With Model Street Types.

Intersection corners can work together with adjacent land uses to create interesting pedestrian spaces.

Implementation and Relation to Current Standards and Practices Current standards and design guidelines, such as those published by Caltrans, are primarily focused on street standards which serve high capacity high speed corridors. However, Caltrans is beginning the process of defining a more flexible approach for state highways based upon the context of the roadway in their publications Flexibility in Highway Design (FHWA) and Context Sensitive Solutions: When Main Street is a State Highway.

25' radius (for transit vehicles)

15' radius or less (no large vehicles)

Figure 3.4: The effect of turning radiI on crossing distance.

A. Turning Radii The length of a corner radius, known also as a curb return radius, can have a significant effect on the overall operation and safety of an intersection. Larger turning radii both promote fast vehicular speed and increase pedestrian crossing distance. Larger turning radii also erode the pedestrian realm, often leaving less space where pedestrians can wait before crossing the street. These effects are demonstrated in Figure 3.4.

Alternatively, too small a radius can impact the overall efficiency of an intersection, and can present obstacles for larger vehicles, such as transit buses. Trade-offs need to be made when determin-

Street Crossings

3.03

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

ing turning radii, and consideration needs to be given to context (i.e. consider whether large vehicles will be expected to turn at the intersection in question).

Considerations General The wider the turning radius, the greater distance the pedestrian must cross.

Figure 3.5: San Diego has devised a way to accommodate both pedestrian comfort and fire response needs; this bulbout devotes space to pedestrians but is also mountable by fire equipment and delineates the edge of the fire lane behind which pedestrians should stand when fire vehicles are turning.

As the corner turning radius increases, generally over 30 feet, the likelihood of automobiles making a right turn without stopping increases.

Turning radius is not the only determinant of overall crossing distance at intersections; street and lane width also play roles. For this reason, as well as for their effect on vehicle speeds and on the pedestrian environment, street and lane width should be considered together with turning radius and intersection design. For more information regarding street widths, please see Section 2.2.

Accessibility Turning radii have an effect on the location of curb ramps and the clear distance from the top of the ramp to the back of the sidewalk.

New Development vs. Retrofit While retrofitting a corner to reduce the radius can be relatively simple, storm drains and ADA curb ramps located at corners will need to be relocated.

Relation to Transit Increasing the length of straight curb provides a larger stopping area for transit.

Curb radii and intersection design need to consider the volume of larger vehicles, such as buses, that will make turning movements at an intersection. The minimum dimension needed for buses is 25 feet.

Relation to Context Corners with smaller turning radii may not be suitable in locations where there is, or expected to be, a significant number of over-sized truck or bus movements.

3.04

Street Crossings

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Implementation and Relation to Current Standards and Practices Section 405.8 City Street Returns and Corner Radii in the Highway Design Manual provides guidance in designing these elements: The pavement width and corner radius at city street intersections is determined by the type of vehicle to be accommodated taking into consideration the amount of available right of way, the roadway width, the number of lanes on the intersecting street, and the number of pedestrians.

Smaller radii of 15 to 25 feet are appropriate at minor cross streets where few trucks are turning.

Local agency standards may be appropriate in urban and suburban areas.

These Caltrans guidelines do not necessarily account for downtown streets where there is a conflict between the need to serve truck deliveries and pedestrian crossings.

Guidelines 1. Appropriate corner radii should be selected based on reasonably anticipated traffic volumes, traffic types, the proposed or existing intersection control devices, and the amount of pedestrian activity in the area.

2. Curb radii at intersections within pedestrian areas should be 10 to 15 feet where curb bulbouts are not used. While concerns about vehicle capacity may dictate wider curb radii (2530 feet), these dimensions increase the distance pedestrians have to walk and can result in high speed right turns at intersections.

Distance can be shortened if bulbout installed

20' min. parking setback

B. Sight Distance More often than not, sight distance is discussed from the standpoint of the driver and not the pedestrian. This is a concern particularly at crosswalk locations where parked cars, utility poles, street furnishing or landscaping can obstruct the line of sight for pedestrians.

Considerations General On significant grades, the sightlines of traffic approaching an intersection are compromised.

Figure 3.6: Preferred parking setback for sight distance

Street Crossings

3.05

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Sightlines for vehicles at an intersection are affected by buildings, street trees, street furniture, etc., as well as by the location of the stop line relative to the intersection.

Slower-speed streets, which support pedestrian movements, allow for the placement of elements such as trees and medians with landscaping. Although these features may restrict sight distance of downstream roadway conditions and traffic control devices, their presence may create a slower-speed, more pedestrian-friendly environment.

Accessibility Figure 3.7: This bulbout in Campbell pulls the pedestriansâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sight line away from obstructions and gives them a clear view down the street.

Shorter pedestrians in particular, such as children and persons in wheelchairs, may be obscured by parked cars.

Implementation and Relation to Current Standards and Practices AASHTO Green Book recommends a 90-degree angle of roadway intersections, whenever possible.

The Caltrans Highway Design Manual (Section 201.3) defines stopping sight distance requirements based on the approaching speed of vehicles. These standards range from 125 feet for speeds of 20 mph to 360 feet for speeds of 45 mph.

Guidelines 1. Potential obstructions to the line of sight of pedestrians (including young children and those in wheelchairs) can be mitigated by implementing parking restrictions at crosswalks.

In typical urban areas with speed limits between 20 to 30 mph as well as in school zones, the no parking zone should extend a minimum of 20 feet from the crosswalk. This can also facilitate the implementation of curb bulbouts (see Section 3.2B, Pedestrian Bulbouts).

2. When street furnishings or other objects that obstruct view cannot be relocated, pedestrian bulbouts should be considered.

C. Striping Considerations General Figure 3.8: Advance stop bar pavement striping improves sight lines between motorists and pedestrians.

3.06

Street Crossings

Pavement striping can be used to direct driversâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; attention to the presence of pedestrian crossing areas.

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Placing advance stop bars a minimum of 5â&#x20AC;&#x2122; back from a crossing or intersection can reduce vehicle encroachment into the crosswalk and make pedestrians more visible. At intersections where transit vehicles and frequent truck turning occurs, the advance stop bar can be set back further to accomodate wider turning radii.

Guidelines 1. Special crosswalk striping should be used to attract driver attention at all midblock crossings and at intersections determined by engineering staff to have pedestrian safety concerns (see Section 3.2A, Marked Crosswalks).

Figure 3.9: Where extra pavement width is needed to accommodate items like diagonal parking, pavement striping can still define narrow travel lanes.

2. The advance stop bar can be enhanced with the addition of a â&#x20AC;&#x153;Stop Here for Pedestrianâ&#x20AC;? sign. The effectiveness of the advance stop bar depends on motorist compliance with the marked stop line. If placed too far in advance of the crosswalk, motorists may ignore the line. These markings may be unpopular in districts which desire less traffic-related visual clutter.

3. In commercial areas with pedestrian activity where vehicle lane widths are greater than 12 feet and sidewalk widening is not possible, striping edgelines can be used to visually narrow the roadway (see Figure 3.9).

D. Traffic Signal Devices and Signage Considerations General Pedestrian safety may be improved at signalized intersections by enhancing traffic signal equipment and/or providing more information to pedestrians.

The use of signs in pedestrian areas is critical and is one of the more cost-effective means of increasing driver awareness.

Accessibility Signal timing should be long enough to allow a pedestrian with limited mobility to cross the street, and needs to be balanced with the desire to limit the time between signal cycles.

Figure 3.10: Signs can alert drivers by providing advance warning of a pedestrian crossing.

Street Crossings

3.07

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Table 3.2: Devices at Traffic Signals Device Type and Description

Automated Eyes

Countdown Signal

Audible Signal

Passive Pedestrian Detection Accessible Push-button Signal

Application

Early pedestrian release intervals permit the pedestrian to begin crossing prior to the release of companion vehicle movements, establishing a clear presence in the crosswalk

At locations where pedestrian crossing times exceed the vehicle green time necessary to maintain acceptable service levels

Animated eye indications are added to the pedestrian signal to remind pedestrians to be aware of vehicle conflicts (the eyes appear to look left and right)

At intersections with large numbers of turning vehicles which may conflict with vehicle crossings

Passive pedestrian detection devices monitor the presence of pedestrians to permit an extension of the crossing time interval. Pedestrians entering the curbside detection zone will activate the pedestrian call feature

Slower pedestrians detected within the on-street detection zones will also receive more time to cross the street

Count-down pedestrian signals Most effective at wide crossings indicate the time remaining for the flashing “Donʼt Walk” interval.

Being aware of the time remaining, pedestrians can increase their pace or decide not to initiate the crossing at all Audible pedestrian signals provide an indication to pedestrians of direction and commencement of the walk interval at signalized intersections

Useful when the pedestrian walk interval is short or when early pedestrian release intervals are used. (The audible signals should not be used near residences and should be muted at night)

Enhanced pedestrian push buttons aid All places persons with physical disabilities in safely crossing streets. The buttons are sized larger, may be lit or make noise to indicate activation, and may be faced with braille instructions

Figure 3.11: Pedestrian devices at traffic signals

Pedestrian “scramble” intersections give pedestrians exclusive access to the intersection by stopping traffic in all directions from entering

Research is continuing in evaluating the safety of these signals, but so far they appear beneficial at intersections with very high pedestrian volumes

Implementation and Relation to Existing Guidelines and Practices Signage is governed by the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) which encourages a conservative use of signage.

Caltrans has an established system of uniform specifications that pertain to bicycle and pedestrian facilities and will soon move to the MUTCD, with a California supplement.

Maintenance A regular maintenance schedule should be undertaken to ensure signals are operational and signs remain visible and legible.

3.08

Street Crossings

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Guidelines 1. To improve crossing conditions, consideration should be given to devices explained in Table 3.2 for improving crossing conditions and illustrated in Figure 3.11. In particular, consider pedestrian countdown signal heads at wide intersections.

The countdown feature alerts pedestrians to the amount of time remaining to cross the street, informing the decision of whether to begin a crossing, or to hurry up the one in progress.

2. Pedestrian signs should be installed according to the guidelines set forth in the Caltrans Traffic Manual, and should only be installed pursuant to good engineering judgement.

3. Traffic signals should provide pedestrians, including seniors, the disabled, and children, with adequate time to cross the street or at least reach a pedestrian refuge in the middle of the street. An average walking speed which has been used historically is 4 feet/second to determine signal duration.

However, a reduced speed such as 3.0 or 3.25 feet/second should be applied to compensate for the elderly and disabled.

4. Pedestrian signals should be at a cycle frequency of 60 to 90 seconds to discourage jaywalking.

5. Auditory pedestrian signals should be limited to two options, either a “cuckoo” walk sound for a crosswalk in the northsouth direction and a “peep-peep” sound for a crosswalk in the east-west direction (the closest proximity to these compass directions), or verbal messages to communicate the walk interval. Systems that adjust volume based on ambient noise levels should be used to minimize noise impacts to nearby residents.

Figures 3.12 and 3.13: Pedestrian activated inpavement lights are becoming popular as a means of increasing the visibility of pedestrian crossings.

6. Push-button boxes should be located at the top of or as near as possible to the curb ramp and clearly in line with the direction of travel. The boxes should be located no higher than 36 inches from the ground.

7. Right turns on red should be prohibited in busy pedestrian areas. A considerable proportion of auto/pedestrian conflicts occur when motorists’ attention is directed towards oncoming traffic and they neglect to notice pedestrians entering the intersection on the right.

8. Pedestrian crossing signs (W54) and advance signage (W54A) should be used adjacent to all unexpected pedestrian crossing areas.

Figure 3.14: Right turn on red prohibitions eliminate the conflict between crossing pedestrians and rightturning vehicles.

Street Crossings

3.09

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

9. Whenever a marked crosswalk is installed at an uncontrolled multi-lane road with three or more lanes, an advance stop line is recommended at a point no further than 30 feet (20 feet preferred) in advance of the crosswalk accompanied by a sign reading “Stop Here for Crosswalk.” The distance for the stop line and sign should be set based on vehicle speeds at each site, with lesser distances for lower speed approaches. One drivers-side sign is appropriate on two-lane lower-speed roads. Two signs facing each direction should be installed on roads with more than two lanes, higher speed roads, or roadways with medians (with one sign on the median where medians exist, otherwise on the opposite side of the street).

Figure 3.15: “Share the Road” signage reminds drivers of the multi-modal role of the street.

12. The color of all pedestrian crossing signs should be “Fluorescent Yellow-Green” per the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). A MUTCD revision (Final Rule Docket No. 96-9, RIN 2125-AD89) adopted the optional use of fluorescent yellow-green (FYG) for warning signs related to pedestrians, bicycle and school applications.

13. Overhead pedestrian crossing signs should be installed on streets with four or more lanes, two or three lane roads with widths greater than 50 feet at crossings where pedestrian crossing activity is more than 50 to 100 crossing per hour, and where sight distance of the driver may not allow view of roadside signs.

14. “Share the Road” signs (Figure 3.15) should be installed on major roadways as they enter concentrated pedestrian areas such as business districts, and along heavily traveled bicycle routes, as well as at other selected locations throughout the region.

E. Modern Roundabouts

Figure 3.16: Modern roundabouts can provide smoother traffic flow with the added benefit of interesting landscaping possibilities.

3.10

Street Crossings

The Modern Roundabout should not be confused with “traffic circles” or “rotaries” for which the prevailing design enabled highspeed merging and weaving of vehicles. The subsequent number of crashes with these facilities ultimately caused them to fall out of favor with engineers and planners. The Modern Roundabout was developed in the United Kingdom in the 1960s with a mandatory “give way” rule, requiring that entering traffic give way, or yield, to circulating traffic. By not allowing vehicles to enter the intersection until there were sufficient gaps in the traffic, this rule prevented the roundabout from locking up. The “give way” rule and the tight curvature of the modern roundabout limit speeds and reduce the potential for serious accidents. The modern roundabout therefore represents a significant improvement to the older traffic circle and rotary, and has been adopted in many countries.

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians occur at every intersection. At typical signalized intersections conflicts can be reduced by using signal phasing that limits movements at any given time. Regardless, the pedestrian faces potential conflicts from four directions: illegal crossing movements on red, right turns on green, left turns on green and right turns on red, for a total of four conflict points (Figure 3.17). Roundabouts reduce the potential conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians, for a total of two conflict points (Figure 3.18).

For more detailed design engineering information refer to Roundabouts: An Informational Guide published in 2000 by the Federal Highways Administration (Publication # FHWA-RD-00067). This publication is the source for design guidelines in this section.

Roundabout Types The type of roundabout depends primarily on the context—urban or rural—and by the number of lanes.

Vehicle/Pedestrian conflict points Figure 3.17: A signalized intersection generates 4 vehicle/pedestrian conflict points at each crosswalk.

Mini-roundabouts are small roundabouts located within the existing right-of-way of a low speed street with no additional right-of-way required. In this document these are referred to as “traffic calming circles” and are described more in-depth in Section 2.5, Traffic Calming.

The Urban Compact Roundabout is a one-lane version intended to be pedestrian and bicycle-friendly because its perpendicular approach legs require very low speeds to make a right turn into or out of the circular roadway. The geometric design includes raised “splitter islands” for pedestrian refuge and a central island that may or may not have a mountable curb. Design speeds are typically 15 mph.

The Urban Single-Lane Roundabout differs from the compact roundabout in its larger diameter and turning radii, which allow for higher capacities and slightly higher speeds at entry and exit. Design speeds range up to 20 mph.

Urban Double Lane Roundabouts have at least one entry with two lanes and thus require a wider circular roadway for two vehicles to travel side by side. Careful design is necessary to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. Design speeds are typically up to 25 mph.

Vehicle/Pedestrian conflict points Figure 3.18: A modern roundabout generates only 2 vehicle/pedestrian conflict points per crosswalk.

Rural Single and Double Lane Roundabouts have larger diameters, facilitating design speeds of up to 30 mph.

Street Crossings

3.11

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Construction of these types of roundabouts should only be considered where there are currently, or are expected to be, few pedestrians.

50'

25'

Considerations

10' 15'

Detectable Warning Surface 24' width

General

6'

Accessibility

Figure 3.19: Design of the splitter island at roundabout

Landscape Strip (5'min) ADA Compliant Ramps Sidewalk

At properly designed roundabouts, pedestrian safety can be improved because pedestrians need only cross one direction of traffic at a time. Lower vehicular speeds associated with roundabouts allow drivers more time to react to potential conflicts.

Concerns have been raised about the safety of visually impaired pedestrians at roundabouts because vehicles are not required to stop as at a conventional intersection.

Visibility of crosswalks and detectable entry points of crosswalks must therefore be carefully considered. See Figures 3.19 and 3.20.

Relation to Transit To prevent bus-stop-related traffic back-ups, bus stops should not be located within the roundabout itself.

25' min.

Relation to Context Yield Line

Landscape Strip (5' min) Bike Lane

Figure 3.20: Sidewalk configuration at roundabout

Retrofitting an existing intersection with a roundabout is easier in areas where roundabouts have already been publicly accepted and drivers properly “trained.”

For high truck-volulme locations, mountable curbs should be used to facilitate truck navigation.

Certain site-specific conditions may preclude installation of a roundabout, including: physical and geometric constraints; proximity of other traffic control devices that would require preemption (e.g. railroad tracks or bus rapid transit routes); high numbers of oversized trucks; and heavy pedestrian and bicycle movements in conflict with high traffic volumes.

Implementation and Relation to Existing Guidelines and Practices Initial installation of a roundabout requires the implementing agency to perform due diligence on the roundabout’s operational and design aspects, community impacts, user needs and public acceptability.

An extensive justification effort may be necessary to gain the required public support.

3.12

Street Crossings

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

A single-lane roundabout is more easily understood by most drivers in the near term and therefore may have a higher probability of acceptance.

Guidelines 1. Recommended posted maximum entry speed should be as follows: Urban Compact Urban Single Lane Urban Double Lane Rural Single Lane Rural Double Lane

15 mph 20 mph 25 mph 25 mph 30 mph

2. At single lane roundabouts, the pedestrian crossing should be at least one vehicle length (approximately 25 feet) from the yield line. This space allows drivers additional time to check for pedestrians while looking left for traffic. It also allows pedestrians to cross behind the first car waiting at the yield line. At double lane roundabouts, the crossing should be at least 50 feet from the yield line.

3. Crossing distances should be minimized to reduce pedestrian exposure.

4. Ramps should be located at either end of the crosswalk.

5. Splitter Islands should be provided on all roundabouts, with crosswalks at street level to preclude the need for a ramp.

Islands should be a minimum of 6 feet wide to provide shelter for pedestrians, and should have a total minimum length of 50 feet to sufficiently separate entering and exiting traffic and deter wrong-way movements (see Figure 3.19).

6. Sidewalks should be set back from the edge of the circulatory roadway by at least 5 feet in order to discourage pedestrians from crossing to the central island (See Figure 3.20). This also serves to clearly indicate the location of designated crossing points to visually impaired pedestrians..

7. Detectable warning strips should be used at crossing entry points. Truncated domes should have a nominal diameter width of 1 inch and a nominal height of .2 inches at 2.35 inch center-to-center spacing.

8. At splitter islands, the detectable warning surface should begin at the curb line and extend 36 inches back in to the refuge area. Within the splitter islands, the width of the detectable warning surface should be reduced to 24 inches to

Street Crossings

3.13

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

allow a minimum clear space of 24 inches (for a 6 foot minimum island). This enables visually impaired pedestrians to distinguish between the two interfaces with traffic.

9. Unobstructed sight distance between crosswalks and approaching traffic should be compliant with FHWA recommendations.

10. Transit stops located on the near side of the roundabout should be located far enough away from the splitter island so that a vehicle overtaking a bus is in no danger of being forced into the island. For a single lane entry where capacity is not an issue the transit stop can be located at the crosswalk.

Transit stops on the far-side of the roundabout should be located beyond the pedestrian crossing and have pull-outs constructed to minimize queuing in the roundabout.

11. Bike lanes should be terminated in advance of crosswalks.

3.2

Pedestrian Crossings

This section presents more detail about crossing treatments. The section begins with a general discussion of crossing issues followed by more specific discussions of marked crosswalks, crossing treatments and crossing locations that require special considerations.

Considerations General The width of the street, the geometry of the intersection, the timing of signalization, and the frequency of crossing opportunities all play important roles in achieving a pedestrianfriendly environment.

Figure 3.21: Crossing restrictions present significant barriers to walking by reducing crossing opportunities and increasing the time required to cross an intersection.

Crossing restrictions create barriers to walking and do not ensure that pedestrians will not cross a street in that location (see Figure 3.21).

To eliminate the temptation to jaywalk, crossing opportunities should be provided at regular and convenient intervals.

Accessibility Appropriate ADA ramps and signal devices should be provided at all pedestrian crossings and median refuge areas.

Relation to Transit All transit stops require that pedestrians are able to cross the street safely and within close proximity to the stop.

3.14

Street Crossings

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

A. Marked Crosswalks Appropriate design solutions can improve safety and access at pedestrian street crossings. Deciding where to mark crosswalks is only one consideration in meeting this objective. A 2001 study by the FHWA entitled Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations found that the presence of a marked crosswalk alone at an uncontrolled location (i.e. a location without pedestrian signals, traffic calming features or other substantive improvements) was not associated with a significantly lower pedestrian accident rate when compared to an unmarked crosswalk location. Consideration should therefore be given to enhancing the visibility of marked crosswalks.

“Zebra”

“Ladder”

Considerations General Marked crosswalks can direct pedestrian crossing activity to specific locations and alert drivers to the possible presence of pedestrians.

Street width and traffic speed can be mitigated by sidewalk bulbouts (described in the following section). The concept has been widely applied in downtown areas with revitalization and streetscape improvement efforts, but is equally applicable to new roads.

“Diagonal”

Accessibility Street crossings require ramps and tactile warning surfaces to comply with ADA requirements outlined in Section 1.3A, Accessibility.

Street crossings using brick or other unit paving materials have been found by pedestrians with low vision to be difficult to visually distinguish from the adjoining street surface. When adjacent public sidewalks are similarly paved, it is difficult to distinguish between sidewalk areas and street crossings, particularly if non-raised sidewalks have been installed in lieu of curb ramps.

Figure 3.22: Typical crosswalk striping patterns

Relation to Context In situations such as low-speed, two-lane streets in downtown areas, installing a marked crosswalk may help consolidate multiple crossing points.

Enhanced pedestrian crossings in residential neighborhoods may not be used if traffic volumes are low enough that pedestrians are comfortable crossing at any location.

Street Crossings

3.15

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Implementation and Relation to Current Standards and Practices Motor vehicle operators generally do not comply with the vehicle code which requires them to “yield” for pedestrians in a marked or unmarked crosswalk. However, drivers may be unfamiliar with the requirements of the vehicle code, therefore, communities must be creative in enhancing drivers’ awareness of the pedestrian.

Figure 3.23: Special paving in Santa Clara’s Rivermark development distinguishes this crosswalk to both pedestrians and motorists.

There are several recent manuals that provide guidelines on pedestrian crossings based on more recent safety research.

For the first time, details on innovative pedestrian crossing treatments for both signalized and unsignalized intersections have been published in a document by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Alternative Treatments for At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings (2001). This source describes a number of measures including signing, striping, lighting, vertical and horizontal displacement treatments, narrow lanes, curb extensions, alternative surface treatments, backdrops, overhead devices, in-pavement devices, signal equipment, pedestrian detection, etc. The study includes the following conclusions: There are a number of higher-cost geometric design features, such as curb bulbouts and pedestrian refuge islands, that can be used to improve safety at marked crosswalks; especially those on high-volume, multi-lane facilities.

Lower speed streets, such as those found in active mixeduse areas and residential neighborhoods, allow the use of less expensive, less complex treatments such as signs and markings.

Within residential areas, street crossings can often be combined with traffic calming measures designed to maintain low vehicle speeds. These include raised crosswalks, chicanes, and gateway narrowings. Refer to Section 2.5, Traffic Calming.

Cities should develop and adopt a crosswalk policy and design guidelines such as these, and “standard” crosswalk designs for public works departments to follow.

Improved crossing facilities can be piggy-backed on capital projects whenever intersections are changed or when roadways are resurfaced.

Cities should implement a rigorous enforcement and education program to monitor and improve behavior at crossings.

3.16

Street Crossings

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Locations with predominantly young, elderly, or handicapped pedestrians.

Other locations

BASIC CRITERIA Speed limit < 45 mi/h Adequate stopping sight distance For midblock, preferred block length > 600' Crosswalk adequately illuminated Minimal conflicting attention demands

200

4 LANE WITHOUT MEDIAN OR 8-LANE WITH MEDIAN 2-LANE, 3-LANE, OR 4 TO 6 LANE WITH MEDIAN

150

HOURLY PED. VOLUME (PEAK FOUR HOURS) INSTALL CROSSWALK

100

25

DO NOT INSTALL CROSSWALK

10 0 0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

HOURLY VEHICULAR VOLUME (PEAK FOUR HOURS) 1. If using only the peak hour, threshold must be increased by 1.5 2. For streets with median, use one way (directional) ADT volume Other notes: Minimum striping is 6' parallel lines. Consider bolder markings and/or supplementary advance markings or signing at uncontrolled locations where speed limits exceed 35 mi/hr.

Figure 3.24: Guidelines for Installation of Marked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Intersections and Midblock Crossings (Source: FHWA)

Maintenance Cities should establish an annual crosswalk improvement program to ensure that crosswalk markings do not deteriorate and become less visible (possibly subjecting cities to liability issues).

Guidelines 1. Guidelines for installation of marked crosswalks at uncontrolled intersections and midblock crossings based on traffic volumes, pedestrian volumes, speed and number of lanes are shown in Figure 3.24.

2. Crosswalks should be a minimum of 10 feet wide. Unless small-scale intersection conditions dictate otherwise, widths should be increased in areas of greater pedestrian activity.

3. Lighting at the levels specified in Section 4.2B, Lighting should be provided.

Street Crossings

3.17

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

4. Marked crosswalks should be considered for uncontrolled crossing locations if there are no controlled crossings (by a traffic signal or stop sign) within 600 feet, provided that the other guidelines presented here are met.

5. Unless circumstances dictate otherwise, marked crosswalks should be provided on all approaches to signalized (controlled) intersections.

6. Marked crosswalks alone (i.e. without traffic-calming treatments, traffic signals, or other substantial crossing improvements presented in these guidelines) should not be used under the following conditions (source: Safety Effects of Marked vs. Unmarked Crosswalks at Uncontrolled Locations, FHWA, 2001): Where the speed limit exceeds 40 mph.

On a roadway with four or more lanes without a raised median or crossing island that has (or will soon have) an ADT of 12,000 vehicles per day or greater.

On a roadway with four or more lanes with a raised median or crossing island that has (or will soon have) an ADT of 15,000 vehicles per day or greater.

7. Special crosswalk markings like those in Figure 3.22 should be used to increase the visibility of the crosswalk on uncontrolled approaches to unsignalized intersections. Markings should be of 70% color contrast from the adjoining walking surface.

8. ADA-compliant wheelchair ramps (two per corner preferred) should be provided at all crosswalks. If a raised central median extends into the crosswalk, an ADA-compliant channel must be provided through the median.

9. Marked crosswalks in residential areas are warranted if traffic volumes exceed 2,000 vehicles per day.

10. On residential streets that experience excessive vehicle speeds, enhanced pedestrian crossings should be combined with traffic calming measures. Certain devices, such as raised crosswalks and raised intersections, function both as a pedestrian crossing and as a traffic calming device.

11. Street trees should be placed as closely as possible to intersections without obstructing sight distances or signal heads.

Trees can help to mitigate the potentially hostile pedestrian environment at large intersections by adding soft textures and shade to wide expanses of asphalt.

3.18

Street Crossings

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

B. Pedestrian Bulbouts See Figure 3.25 Considerations General Pedestrian bulbouts reduce pedestrian crossing distances at intersections and make pedestrians more visible to drivers.

Full-corner bulbout

Installation of bulbouts sometimes requires removal of onstreet parking, but on-street parking is often already restricted near intersections.

Accessibility The use of bulbouts reduces the overall crossing distance, which is especially important for pedestrians with restricted mobility.

Half-corner bulbout

New Development vs. Retrofit Installing bulbouts within existing rights-of-way is straightforward if excessive width or on-street parking exists.

Relation to Transit Extended bulbouts that allow buses to remain in traffic flow without requiring additional time to re-enter the flow may be used for transit stops on streets with more than two lanes.

Relation to Context Larger vehicles such as trucks and buses may have difficulty making right turns at intersections with bulbouts. In locations where heavy truck or bus turning is expected, bulbouts can be designed with a mountable or rolled curb, but still differentiated from the roadway by pavement color and texture or bollards. However, any bollards, poles or street furniture must be kept back at least 24 inches from the edge of the mountable curb.

Bulbouts are most appropriate in the following locations: where residential streets meet arterial streets at an obtuse angle; on routes used by school children or elderly persons; downtown or neighborhood shopping areas with high pedestrian volumes; and areas nominated by neighborhood associations.

Bus bulbout

Figure 3.25: Pedestrian bulbout types

Street Crossings

3.19

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Implementation and Relation to Existing Guidelines and Practices Determine arterial and residential street specifications.

Include curb bulboutsâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;and/or smaller curb radiiâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;in standard plans and specifications for public or private road projects. A change in one or more local ordinances may be required or specifications may sometimes be implemented by administrative rule.

Start an annual program to install bulbouts at obtuse-angle intersections. Develop project selection criteria to identify the projects that will do the most to enhance safety.

Figure 3.26: The installation of this large pedestrian bulbout required a trench (covered with grating) to maintain adequate street drainage.

Maintenance Added costs may be associated with relocation or accommodation of utilities and drainage. Drainage costs may be reduced by maintaining the existing gutter, constructing the curb extension as an island, and spanning the sidewalk to the island with a metal grate (see Figure 3.26). This approach will require special maintenance to remove debris.

Guidelines 1. Bulbouts should be used for crosswalks in heavy pedestrian areas where parking may limit the driverâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s view of the pedestrian.

Figure 3.27: Bulbouts shorten crossing distance and create space for landscaping.

2. Where used, sidewalk bulbouts should extend into the street for the width of a parking lane, or a minimum 5 feet, to reduce crossing width, increase pedestrian visibility, enlarge areas for pedestrian queuing, and provide a place for sidewalk amenities and planting (see Figure 3.28).

3. Bulbouts should be designed such that 14 feet of lane width remains, allowing enough space for cars and bicycles.

4. Bulbouts should be used on midblock crossings where feasible (see following section on Midblock Crosswalks), as in Figure 3.29.

5. Bulbouts may be inappropriate for use on corners where frequent right turns are made by trucks or buses.

C. Installation of Midblock Crosswalks Figure 3.28: The addition of a bench to this bulbout in downtown Campbell creates a small public space.

3.20

Street Crossings

Like all travelers, pedestrians desire to take the shortest, most direct path to their destinations, and when those destinations lie across a street, the question of crossing location is significant. In areas with high street network connectivity and short block lengths, the proliferation of closely-spaced intersections ensure

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

that pedestrians are able to find crossings with minimal out-ofdirection travel. But many areas in the county have been designed with low street network connectivity and long block lengths. The resulting wide spacing of intersections translates into few crossing opportunities.

This condition is problematic for pedestrians in two ways: it increases out-of-direction travel; and it tempts pedestrians to cross at unprotected locations.

In some situations, the installation of a midblock crosswalk presents a potential solution to these problems by providing a highly visible cue to drivers that they should be aware of and yield to crossing pedestrians. Such installations may not be appropriate everywhere, and should be preceded by careful study and consideration of relevant local conditions, as described in the guidelines below.

Considerations

Figure 3.29: Bulbouts can be used with midblock crossings as well as as intersections.

General Midblock crosswalks provide convenient crossing locations for pedestrians when other crossing opportunities are distant, or where a destination creates high crossing demand.

As with crosswalks at intersections, midblock crosswalks help to channel crossing pedestrians and alert drivers to their presence.

Safety concerns arise at midblock crosswalks, as drivers typically do not anticipate pedestrians or crosswalks at nonintersection locations.

Accessibility All requirements for street crossings at intersections are applicable at midblock locations.

Relation to Transit Midblock crossings may be particularly appropriate along streets with long block lenghts where a transit stop is located across from a major destination such as a shopping center or a library (see Figures 3.30 and 3.31).

Relation to Context In suburban areas with longer distances between intersections and traffic signals, a large proportion of pedestrian crossings occur at unsignalized intersections or at midblock

Figures 3.30 and 3.31: Hazards created when crosswalks are not located where pedestrians need them. In this case a shopping center is located across the street from a bus stop with no crossing opportunity for several hundred feet.

Street Crossings

3.21

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

locations, warranting consideration of a designated midblock crossing.

Midblock crossings are generally not warrented where frequent crossing opportunities exist at intersections.

Implementation and Relation to Existing Guidelines and Practices An extensive engineering study is required to assess the feasibility of installing a midblock crossing.

Figure 3.32: A midblock crossing would better connect this park with the library across the street

When planning for crossings, examine the natural desire lines that pedestrian use. The use of a time-lapse video camera of a potential site may be beneficial for this purpose.

Guidelines

Figure 3.33: This midblock crossing in Willow Glen is accentuated by an archway.

1. Crossing opportunities should be provided at midblock locations where block lengths are greater than 450 to 550 feet in length and where there is demand. This will decrease the temptation to jaywalk and reduce out-of-direction travel.

Prior to installing midblock crossings, consideration must be given to the following: sight distance, vehicle speed, accident records, illumination, traffic volumes, nearby pedestrian trip generators and distance to next crossing. Midblock crossings may not be appropriate for arterials with speeds greater than 40 mph and traffic volumes higher than 20,000 vehicles per day. They are better-suited to streets with speeds less than 35 mph.

2. The distance to an adjacent marked crossing should be greater than 250 feet.

3. An engineering survey should be conducted to ensure that the number of midblock crossings would be high enough to justify installation.

4. Designated midblock crossings are most appropriate near land uses that generate high pedestrian volumes, such as a major office building, school, shopping area, or major transit stop.

5. At a minimum, midblock crosswalks should be made visible to motorists through the use of striping or textured pavements.

Additional measures such as bulbouts, neckdowns, raised crosswalks, overhead and in-pavement lighting, safety lighting, signalization or other appropriate measures should be considered with midblock crosswalks to further increase their visibility. See Section 3.1D, Traffic Signals, Devices and Signage; and Section 2.5, Traffic Calming.

3.22

Street Crossings

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

D. Pedestrian Refuge Islands Pedestrian refuges in wide or busy streets improve safety for pedestrians and vehicles. They are defined as areas within an intersection or between lanes of traffic where pedestrians may safely wait until vehicular traffic clears, allowing them to finish the crossing. These islands are particularly helpful as resting areas for seniors, the disabled, and children who may be unable to cross the street during the available signal time. Another benefit is the reduction in delay for crossing unsignalized intersections since the pedestrian need only search for vehicles in one direction at a time.

Figure 3.34: A pedestrian refuge island makes street crossing easier, narrows the roadway, and slows traffic.

Pedestrian “corrals” can be located in islands to improve safety by forcing the pedestrian to look into the direction of oncoming traffic (as shown in Figure 3.34). Refuges can take several different forms: Center Median Islands. These islands are placed in the medians to provide space for pedestrians waiting to cross the second half of the street.

Right-turn Channel Islands. At intersections with large turn radii and free right-turns, refuge islands can be used to reduce the number of lanes pedestrians must cross at once. This treatment should be viewed as a last resort, as the configuration allows fast vehicle turning with minimal scanning. It is more beneficial to pedestrians to eliminate the large turning radii and free rightturns instead.

Side Access Lane Medians. Where side access lanes along boulevards are constructed, a waiting area should be provided on the median that separates the side access lanes from the throughtraffic lanes.

Considerations

6’ min

railing

General Pedestrian refuge islands work well on streets with speeds higher than 30 mph and on wide streets where there are long pedestrian crossing times and exposure to vehicular traffic.

Accessibility Refuges are particularly useful for slower pedestrians, such as the very young, elderly, or those with mobility-related disabilities.

Where it is not possible to include ramps and waiting pads that meet ADA requirements, waiting areas should be provided as channels at-grade with the roadway, with a slope of at

Figure 3.35: Midblock, “corral-style” pedestrian crossing and island

Street Crossings

3.23

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

least 2 percent for drainage and bollards to buffer pedestrians from moving traffic.

New Development vs. Retrofit Pedestrian islands can be installed in streets with two-way left-turn lanes, with excessively wide travel lanes or turn lanes, and with excessive vehicle lanes that can be eliminated.

Pedestrian islands should be considered from the outset of design for intersections that are either complex, irregular in shape, wider than four lanes, or in areas where children and older people are expected to cross frequently.

Relation to Transit Pedestrian islands are most approriate where transit runs within the street right-of-way, and the islands can serve as boarding areas.

Figure 3.36: A refuge island within a median. Note that the channel through the island should be the same width as the crosswalk.

Relation to Context In suburban areas with longer distances between intersections and traffic signals, a large proportion of pedestrian crossings occur at unsignalized intersections or at midblock locations. These situations are particularly appropriate for pedestrian refuge islands allowing the pedestrian to scan for traffic one direction at a time.

Refuge islands are not beneficial in locations where the roadway alignment obscures the island.

Implementation and Relation to Existing Guidelines and Practices Pedestrian refuge islands should be considered during the design of complex intersections rather than after construction.

Maintenance Because they are in the center of a street, refuge islands may be overlooked in routine street and sidewalk sweeping and become a catchment area for debris.

Guidelines

Figure 3.37: Right turn channelization islands can reduce the number of lanes crossed at one time by a pedestrian, but should only be used as a last resort, because channelization encourages higher vehicle turning speeds and reduces the comfort level of pedestrians.

3.24

Street Crossings

1. Pedestrian refuge islands should be installed at crossings of streets with 4 or more lanes, where demonstrated crossing demand exists, and where it is feasible to provide a refuge island.

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

2. Pedestrian refuge islands should be installed at crossings of streets with two to three lanes, with traffic volumes higher than 7,500 vehicles per day, and speeds greater than 35 mph, and where feasible.

3. At street crossing locations with vehicle speeds higher than 35 mph and traffic volumes more than 15,000 vpd, “corralstyle” pedestrian refuge islands should be offset so that pedestrians must face opposing traffic before crossing the second half of the street as illustrated in Figure 3.35.

4. Recommended dimensions for refuge islands are 6 feet wide by 8 feet long. In constrained situations this width can be reduced to 4 feet. Corral-style refuge islands may require additional space.

5. Paths through refuge islands should be at-grade with the street—preferable to ramps—and at the same width as the crosswalk.

6. Pedestrian refuge islands should be well illuminated, as discussed in Section 4.2B, Lighting.

Figure 3.38: A missed opportunity for a pedestrian refuge island

7. Some type of vertical element should be provided on the island, especially on the approach nose, to improve the island’s visibility, but not obscure waiting pedestrians.

Elements could include trees, bollards, landscape features, or signage.

E. Roadway Overpasses and Underpasses Where surface streets intersect with barriers such as railroad tracks, waterways, or high-speed freeways, it is often on gradeseparated right-of-way, either underneath the barrier in question or above it. At these locations, continuous and comfortable pedestrian facilities along the entire grade-separated crossing are essential to the pedestrian environment. If preserving auto access across barriers is important, it is even more so for pedestrians, whose slower travel speed makes out-of-direction travel so much more inconvenient.

Considerations New Development vs. Retrofit On an existing substandard bridge, consideration should be given to cantilevering a path to provide access for bicycles and pedestrians.

Figure 3.39: This overpass in Millbrae inlcudes a separate zone for pedestrians.

Street Crossings

3.25

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Context As with surface streets, although the existence of sidewalks is important everywhere, priority should be given to wider sidewalks and more pedestrian amenities on grade-separated crossings near land uses with high pedestrian activity.

Implementation and Relation to Existing Standards and Practices

Figure 3.40: This creek bridge functions well for vehicles, but does not allow for safe pedestrian crossing.

The Caltrans Highway Design Manual features chain link railing styles in order to prevent objects from being thrown from the overpass. These railings are unpleasant for pedestrians; new structures crossing roadways under Caltrans jurisdiction will need to seek flexibility from Caltrans for different designs.

Guidelines 1. A new bridge or overpass should maintain the same cross-section, including bike lanes and sidewalks, as the roadway approaches. Bridge structures represent opportunities to create high-quality pedestrian infrastructure via the inclusion of amenities such as street trees, special light features, seating, pedestrian rail designs, and scenic overlook spaces.

2. If the approaching roadway does not have bike lanes and/or sidewalks, then the bridge should include a minimum of 4foot bike lanes and 4-foot sidewalks (6 feet is preferred) on both sides.

3. A new underpass should maintain the same cross-section including bike lanes and sidewalks, as the roadway approaches.

4. If the approaching roadway does not have bike lanes and or sidewalks, then the underpass shall provide an absolute minimum of a 4 foot sidewalk, with a 6 foot sidewalk preferred, separated from the roadway by more than a standard curb height where vertical clearance allows.

5. Underpasses should have a daytime illuminance minimum of 10 foot-candles (fc), achievable through artificial and/or natural light provided through an open gap to the sky between the two sets of highway lanes, and a night-time level of 4 fc.

6. Consider acoustic mitigation measures within underpasses to reduce noise impacts to pedestrians and bicyclists.

7. When designing or retrofitting an overpass, standpipes and similar obstructions should be recessed into the wall or otherwise located out of the travel way.

3.26

Street Crossings

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

F. Highway On/Off Ramps

142 degrees

Freeway on- and off-ramps serve as the transition point for vehicles between traveling high, freeway speeds and low, neighborhood speeds. Where they meet surface streets, whether at an intersection or a merge point, it is essential for the motorist to be alerted to the transition to a pedestrian area.

On- and off-ramps in the pedestrian environment should include comfortable crossings for pedestrians, and encourage safe driving behavior. For off-ramps, this entails ensuring that vehicles exiting from freeways have slowed down to appropriate surface-street speeds so they can be vigilant of crossing pedestrians. For onramps, it entails ensuring that vehicles do not accelerate to freeway speeds before they have entered the high-speed facility.

Figure 3.41 illustrates the impact of turning radii on visibility and vehile speed while 3.42 illustrates a preferred scenario where the off ramp meets the city street at a “typical” urban intersection.

Considerations Accessibility

ASSHTO's Standard: high speed; low visibility

112 degrees

Preferred Standard: lower speed; higher visibility

Figure 3.41: Tighter turning radii at a freeway offramp’s right-turn slip reduces driver speed and requires less head-turning.

Narrowing the crossing distance and/or providing a refuge island at ramp-street intersections is necessary to reduce the time the slower-moving disabled pedestrian is exposed.

New Development vs. Retrofit Many highway access points have been over-designed, including ramp width and curve and curb radii, resulting in excessive roadspace that can be re-allocated to the pedestrian realm.

New highway access improvements should be designed to comfortably accomodate pedestrian and bicycle access.

Implementation and Relation to Current Standards and Practices The Caltrans Highway Design Manual stipulates designs for ramp terminals with local streets that may not be appropriate for some situations. Changes are therefore needed to accommodate slower-speed designs. In the meantime, flexibility will need to be sought from Caltrans.

Figure 3.42: This highway off-ramp meets the street at a signalized intersection with turning radii less that 20’ and crosswalks on all sides.

Guidelines 1. Ramps should be designed for 20 mph at the ramp-street intersections in urban areas, and pedestrian supportive areas.

Street Crossings

3.27

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

2. Free flowing entrance and exit ramps that allow vehicles to proceed without stopping should not be constructed in areas where pedestrians are expected.

3. A right-angle intersection should be provided where the ramp meets the cross street to improve visibility for both the motorist and pedestrian and to reduce the crossing distance.

Figure 3.43: This bridge takes pedestrians and bicyclists from downtown Mountain View over Light Rail, Caltrain, and the Central Expressway, making an important link the areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s pedestrian network.

4. The use of stop or yield signs or crossing signals should be considered to allow pedestrians the opportunity to cross.

5. Where merging ramps intersect with the local street at a tintersection, accessible channelization islands should be installed between the right and left turning movements to provide a crossing island for pedestrians.

6. Two-lane on- and off-ramps should be avoided if possible as they are difficult for bicyclists and pedestrians to traverse.

G. Grade Separated Crossings Grade separated crossings refer to pedestrian- and bicycle-only bridges or underpasses. These facilities are very expensive and should only be considered where it is not possible to provide an atgrade facility, such as crossings of high-speed roadways, railways, and waterways.

Figure 3.44: This pedestrian creek crossing reduces walking distances between destinations in Menlo Park and Palo Alto.

Where grade-separated crossings are necessary, special care should be taken to create comfortable pedestrian space.

Crossings perceived as uncomfortable will not be used.

Considerations Accessibility Grade separated crossings necessitate either accessible ramps that require a considerable amount of land for installation, or elevators at either end of the crossing.

Implementation and Relation to Existing Standards and Practices The Caltrans Highway Design Manual features chain link railing styles in order to prevent objects from being thrown from the overpass. These railings are unpleasant for pedestrians; new structures crossing roadways under Caltrans jurisdiction will need to seek flexibility from Caltrans for different designs.

3.28

Street Crossings

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Guidelines 1. Over and underpasses should be considered only for crossing arterials with greater than 20,000 vehicle trips per day and speeds 35 - 40 mph and over.

2. Because bicycle and pedestrian bridge structures are narrow by nature, design details for the railing need to be aesthetically pleasing to avoid imparting a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;rat in a cageâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; effect to crossing pedestrians.

3. Underpasses will be percieved as unsafe if not sufficiently lighted. They should have a daytime illuminance minimum of 10 foor-candles (fc) achievable through artificial and/or natural light provided through an open gap to the sky between the two sets of highway lanes, and a night-time level of 4 fc.

4. Implement a comprehensive system of wayfinding signage in the vicinity of grade-separated crossings. Pedestrians will only use the crossings if they know how to access them.

Signage should be posted on street and pathway intersections near the pedestrian crossing.

Street Crossings

3.29

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

3.30

Street Crossings

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

4.

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

4.1

Introduction

Supportive pedestrian environments are fundamentally about comfort and interest. Chapter 2 discussed the dimensions of street and sidewalk right-of-way, which are certainly important for pedestrian comfort. However, in Santa Clara County, the width of the pedestrian realm is not the final, nor, arguably, the most important consideration. The concern is not so much the physical capacity of a sidewalk to carry people, but rather, how to create a pedestrian realm that is comfortable and interesting for people to use. It is the pedestrian realm taken in total, including the details within the sidewalk right-of-way, as well as those just beyond it, that determines the level of comfort and interest imparted to the passing pedestrian.

The first part of this chapter discusses amenities (sometimes referred to as â&#x20AC;&#x153;street furnitureâ&#x20AC;?) that are placed along sidewalks to provide comfort and interest to pedestrians en route and to give them reasons to linger along the way. Successful pedestrian infrastructure thus becomes successful placemaking civic infrastructure. Amenities are therefore integral to the built environment both because of their ability to encourage walking as well as their contribution to the civic experience. Pedestrian amenities can encourage increased activity and easier circulation, as well as fulfilling community-building functions. Discussion begins with landscape and lighting for sidewalks, then proceeds to public seating and other pedestrian amenities, and finally, to signage and public art.

Figure 4.1: A high-quality pedestrian realm such as Downtown Sunnyvale requires attention to detail, such as planters, signage, and awnings.

The second part of this chapter discusses connections.

Development patterns in Santa Clara County have created areas with low street network connectivity, resulting in indirect routes to local destinations. Indirect travel routes drastically affect the pedestrian experience, and creating high-quality sidewalks alone will not sufficiently improve the pedestrian environment. Chapter 4 responds to this issue by focusing its latter sections on creating pedestrian paths and connections where street connections do not exist.

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

4.01

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

4.2

Pedestrian Amenities and Comfort

A. Sidewalk Amenities/Seating

Figure 4.2: Public seating invites people to linger, as on Palo Altoâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s California Avenue.

Pedestrian amenities placed along a sidewalk announce that pedestrians are welcome. The presence of objects that are explicitly for the pedestrian fosters a sense that the street is a comfortable place to be. Pedestrian amenities accomplish this effect in two ways: by providing a functional service to the pedestrian, such as a public telephone or a drinking fountain; and, more subtly, by providing the visual detail that makes a place comfortable and interesting.

Amenities that can add functionality and vitality to the pedestrian realm include: public seating, refuse and recycling bins, drinking fountains, public telephones, news racks, bicycle parking, restrooms, information kiosks, and pedestrian-scale retail stands.

Public seating warrants particular attention because, more than any other amenity, it encourages people to rest, converse, read, or simply people-watch. It creates places where people, able to see others and be seen, feel safe, via the passive monitoring effect termed â&#x20AC;&#x153;eyes on the streetâ&#x20AC;? by Jane Jacobs. And that ability to entice people to linger is the hallmark of great public space.

Considerations General

Figure 4.3: A chessboard can function as street furniture

Pedestrian amenities should be considered as necessary a public expenditure as other street elements, such as traffic signals and signage.

Accessibility The placement of street furniture should not impede the accessible travel path.

The current draft ADA Guidelines require that at least one bench, or 50 percent of a grouping of public benches, satisfy accessibility requirements for seating, back, and height dimensions, and provision of armrests. Few bench manufactures have given consideration to this issue.

New Development vs. Retrofit

Figure 4.4: A consolidated newspaper rack provides amenity without clutter.

4.02

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

Retrofitting existing sidewalks with new amenities is feasible as long as there is sufficient available right-of-way.

Redesign of the roadway in conjunction with sidewalk improvements can allow for wider sidewalks if lanes and/or shoulders can be reduced, creating space for amenities.

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Relation to Transit Particular attention should be devoted to clustering amenities near transit stops. Many pedestrian amenities, especially seating, are particularly important for transit riders. It is also the case that these items will be better-used if situated near transit stops, since people wait at these locations.

Relation to Context The location of amenities will dictate their effectiveness.

Rather than being spaced evenly along the pedestrian realm, placement of amenities should be targeted to specific locations. Targeting helps use limited resources for amenities most effectively.

Figure 4.5: Additional space is created for outdoor dining and landscape amenities by installing a midblock bulbout.

The type, design, and materials of amenities should be selected to reflect the local character of the surrounding neighborhood in order to contribute to a sense of community identity.

Implementation and Relation to Existing Guidelines and Practices Pedestrian amenities can be installed piece-by-piece by individual private land development projects and public infrastructure projects. But to coordinate these individual projects so that a cohesive overall pedestrian realm results and to establish a common vision for the pedestrian realm, streetscape improvement plans for particular neighborhoods should be created .

Maintenance

Figure 4.6: This bench is designed into a midblock bulbout and incorporates elements of public art.

Maintenance and replacement of outdated or damaged amenities is mandatory for public safety, comfort, aesthetics and perception of investment in the public realm.

Guidelines 1. Sidewalk amenities should be located within the Furnishings or Frontage Zones as described in Section 2.1B, Determining a Width - Establishing â&#x20AC;&#x153;Zonesâ&#x20AC;?.

2. When possible, seating arrangements should be configured to allow people choice to either converse easily (i.e. face benches towards each other) or sit in a solitary location.

3. Seating should be provided adjacent to major destination points, such as department stores and restaurants, where they are often necessary and where they will not be underutilized or neglected.

Figure 4.7: Constructed as part of a mixed-use office building in Mountain View, this low wall serves double duty as both a planter box and public seating.

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

4.03

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Focus on Pedestrian Amenities Retail Stands Retail activity in the pedestrian realm translates fairly directly to pedestrian activity; therefore, retail stands that cater to passing pedestrians can add vitality to a sidewalk, giving people a reason to pause on their journeys or even becoming a destination in and of itself.

Bicycle Parking Racks Bicycle parking facilities should be included in the pedestrian realm to encourage and support bicycling.

Racks should be located near entrances to buildings, but should not obstruct the pedestrian through-way zone, and should be taller than 30 inches to maximize visibility to pedestrians. For more guidance on bicycle racks, please consult the VTA Technical Bicycle Guidelines.

4. Seating and other amenities should be made of durable, highquality materials that visually reinforce community identity and the design of nearby buildings.

5. Seating incorporated into building form or landscape features, such as seat-walls, is an alternative to free-standing benches.

6

Unfortunately, in some cases fear of loiterers has resulted in seating that is so uncomfortable that no one would want to use it. Care should be taken in balancing concerns about loitering with creating seating that is attractive and comfortable.

7. Pedestrian amenities may also be placed within bulbouts where sidewalk widths are extended into the parking lane.

Dining areas for adjacent restaurants can be located on large bulbouts to minimize conflicts between high amounts of foot traffic at crossings and the privacy needed by diners. For more information on bulb-outs, see Section 3.2B, Bulbouts.

8. Street furnishing design and location should consider car overhangs and door swing. When placed near the curb, furnishings should be located at the ends of the on-street parking stalls rather than at the center.

9. No sidewalk amenity should reduce the clear width of a sidewalk or walkway path to less than 4 feet and all amenities should comply with ADA requirements. See Section 1.3A, Accessibility.

B. Lighting Good levels of lighting are important for maintaining a safe and secure pedestrian realm during the evening. The standard cobrahead fixture serves the auto, but does not provide lighting appropriate for pedestrians. Because they move at a slower pace, pedestrians have a smaller field of focus than people moving in a vehicle. They look at more detail, and stop more frequently and for longer periods of time. Thus, they require shorter light standards to direct more intense light onto a smaller space.

4.04

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Considerations Accessibility Those who are visually impaired will find navigating poorly lit sidewalks or sidewalks with glare especially difficult.

New Development vs. Retrofit Installations of pedestrian-scale lighting are clearly easier when streets are first built or re-constructed. But new lighting can also be installed on existing streets as long as accessibility requirements for unobstructed throughway are met.

Relation to Transit Lighting levels on transit platforms need to be significantly higher than in the surrounding area. Amtrak, for instance, requires a lighting level of 5 footcandles (fc) on its platforms, lowering to 2 footcandles (fc) elsewhere in the facility.

Relation to Context

Figure 4.8: Adequate pedestrian lighting is important for maintaining a safe and comfortable pedesrian environment.

Lighting levels need not be uniform across locations, but should reflect the expected level of pedestrian activity for a particular context. Table 4.1 provides recommendations based on context.

Implementation and Relation to Current Standards and Practices The desire for â&#x20AC;&#x153;dark skiesâ&#x20AC;? by officials at Mount Hamilton Observatory should be balanced with pedestrian safety. San Jose produces over 70% of artificial nighttime brightness; other jurisdictions contribute very little, so this consideration may not be relevant in all locations. Nonetheless, Lick Observatory recommends low-pressure sodium to all all other lighting types (followed by high-pressure sodium). San Jose has agreed to use low-pressure sodium lights except in select pedestrian-intensive areas. Timers and shielding that minimizes stray uplighting can also mitigate the dark sky effects of pedestrian lighting. Establishing standards controlling stray up-lighting can accomplish this.

Local design standards and ordinances should be checked against those recommended by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, whose recommendations are reflected in these guidelines.

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

4.05

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Table 4.1: Recommended Illuminance Values for Walkways Illumination (fc) Area Type Pedestrian-supportive

1

Mixed-use or commercial

2

Residential Rural Industrial ParkingArea Lots Type

minimum

Pedestrian Supportive Areas

2.0

2.0

1.0 - 2.0

2.0

0.4

1.0 - 1.5

0.2 Illumination 0.4 (fc) 1.8

Bus Stops Transit Platforms

Illumination (fc)

N/A (fc) Illumination 0.4 1.8

3

1.0 - 1.5

1.5 - 2.0

5.0 at loading area; 2.0 elsewhere

5.0 at loading area; 2.0 elsewhere

1.Considered to have high nighttime pedestrian activities.

2.Level dependent upon expected nighttime pedestrian activity level.

3.Considered same level as Local/Local intersection (see following table) Note: Uniformity Levels (UR) to not exceed 3:1 Maintained Illumination by Average Area (f/c) Reference: Adapted from American National Pedestrian Standard Practice for Roadway Functional Lighting; Publication RP-8, Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 2000.

ClassiďŹ cation

Table 4.2: Recommended Pedestrian Illuminance for Intersections and Midblock Crossings Average Maintained Illumination by Pedestrian Area (f/c)2

Functional ClassiďŹ cation1

High

Medium

Low

Major/Major

3.4

2.6

1.8

Major/Collector

2.9

2.2

1.5

Major/Local

2.6

2.0

1.3

Collector/Collector

2.4

1.8

1.2

Collector/Local

2.1

1.6

1.0

Local/Local

1.8

1.4

0.8

1. Major: >3500 ADT; Collector: 1500-3500 ADT; Local 100-1500 ADT 2. High: areas with high night pedestrian activities; Medium: moderate pedestrian nighttime activities - typically near community facilities; Low: typical in residential neighborhoods. (Note: values do not consider areas with increased crime and vandalism) Reference: American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting; Publication RP-8, Illuminating Engineering Society of North America, 2000.

4.06

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Guidelines 1. Adequate and aesthetically pleasing lighting should be provided for safety, security, and a greater sense of comfort for pedestrians of all abilities. Lighting should allow pedestrians to quickly and accurately recognize cues to enable safe navigation.

2. Recommendations for minimum lighting correspondingto specific types of areas are listed in Tables 4.1 and 4.2.

3. Driveways serving high-volume activities, such as regional shopping centers, should be thought of as major intersections and illuminated as such (see Table 4.2).

4. The appropriate height for pedestrian lighting is between 12 and 20 feet high. Light standards may also be combined on one post. Low, pedestrian-oriented lights can be affixed to a post and direct light onto sidewalks, while the same post may also accommodate auto-oriented lights directed at roadways.

Figure 4.9: This lightpole includes both safety lighting and perdestrian-scaled lighting.

5. In some cases, lighted bollards may be appropriate for illuminating a pedestrian pathway or a pedestrian refuge island.

6. It is preferable for fixtures to be closely spaced with lower light levels rather than further apart with intense and varied light levels, which can be uncomfortable for pedestrians.

7. Lamps should provide broad spectrum lighting.

8. In pedestrian supportive areas, low-pressure sodium lights should not be used, as they create an unnatural yellow cast which reduces safety and the quality of the environment.

9. Glare should be minimized and lights should be directed down and away from eye level when pedestrians are either standing or sitting.

10 Lighting systems that provide higher levels during more active times of the early morning and evenings should be considered. For example, employment areas could have pedestrian level lighting to supplement standard street lighting which could be timed to dim or shut off when pedestrian activity is lower. This reduces energy costs and potential â&#x20AC;&#x153;dark skyâ&#x20AC;? impacts.

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

4.07

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

C. Landscape

Figure 4.10: Mature street trees vastly improve the appearance and comfort of the street for all users.

Vegetation, especially trees, add soft textures and bright colors to the otherwise hard and dull-colored surfaces of the built environment. Landscape is therefore an important feature of the pedestrian realm, mitigating the harshness of asphalt and concrete to increase pedestrians comfort. Trees may be the most visibly significant improvement, if properly selected, planted, and maintained. They provide shade from the sun, buffer pedestrians from passing vehicle traffic, and punctuate the street with a pleasing visual rhythm. They also provide a sense of enclosure for pedestrians that counteracts the feeling of being exposed. Ground cover and shrubs may be appropriate supplements to add character along residential streets, and to increase visual buffering for pedestrians along arterials.

Considerations General Vegetation planted should reflect the identity of Santa Clara County and its varied environmental settings. For instance, The San Jose Redevelopment Agency has determined that the following street trees are not conducive to the local climatic conditions and should not be used: American Sweet Gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Idaho Locust (Robina ambigua ‘Idahoensis’), Tulip Tree (Liiodendron tulipifera), and Raywood Ash (Fraxinus oxycarpa ‘Raywood’).

Figure 4.11: Landscaping and trees work to soften the face of this parking garage in Mountain view, making the alley a pleasant walking enviornment.

Landscape practices should follow xeriscape principles, meaning that native, drought-tolerant species should be used as appropriate.

Watering needs must be considered in selecting appropriate vegetation.

Accessibility Tree grates or planting areas must be designed, installed and maintained so as not to pose an obstacle or tripping hazard.

New Development vs. Retrofit Mature landscape with is an important elements of an attractive pedestrian realm in an existing community, and can become one in a proposed or new development.

Relation to Transit

Figure 4.12: Coordination between utility lines and street trees should be considered to avoid the unattractive “topping” of street trees.

4.08

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

Landscaping can provide welcome shade at transit stops, but must be situated so as not to interfere with access to and egress from buses at bus stops.

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Relation to Context Tree type and spacing should be selected for look and growth patterns compatible with the urban design goals of the street, particularly in downtown environments. Key considerations include whether the mature tree canopy affects street lighting, or views of signage and building fronts, as well as whether the root system affects sidewalks and utilities.

Implementation and Relation to Current Standards and Practices There are some regulations in place that restrict the distance from the edge of travel lanes that trees can be planted. For instance, AASHTO recommends a clear zone of 1.5 feet beyond face of curb for urban streets; the Caltrans Highway Design Manual, as well as some local street design regulations, may be even stricter. Therefore, flexibility may need to be sought to implement street trees, particularly in medians and in parking-lane tree wells.

The East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD) has issued a handbook entitled Water-Conserving Plants and Landscapes for the Bay Area (1990) that can advise in selecting trees and vegetation.

Maintenance To be effective, street landscaping requires routine care, as urban street conditions are harsh environments for plants.

Reflected heat off the pavement, limited soil volumes, poor soil conditions such as subterranean debris, compaction, base rock, concrete spoils and variable fill soils, inadequate irrigation, heat radiating from cars (engines and radiators), various automotive fluids dripping into the soil, and vandalism all impact the viability of plant life. Tree species, soil conditions, and irrigation systems should be selected, designed, and installed for easy maintenance. However, defects in the design and/or installation typically cannot be made up with extra maintenance.

Trees that bear fruit, especially Mulberry trees, can cause significant maintenance problems.

Situations where tree canopies are trimmed below light standards should be avoided. Trees with taller canopies should be used or trees should be spaced so as to spread out underneath light standards.

Figure 4.13: Shade trees make waiting for transit on a hot, sunny day a far more pleasant and comfortable experience.

“Cool Communities” Landscape can improve the pedestrian realm while simultaneously fulfilling other goals.

Municipalities can explore initiating “Cool Communities” studies similar to Sacramento’s, where city-initiated or -funded projects incorporating design features such as cool roofing, cool parking surfaces, solar photovoltaic panels, ample shade trees and other “green” building technology. Based on NASA overflight data, this program looks at the relationship between “urban forests”, urban land uses and heat islands.

Results of the study will help determine which types of trees, natural surface areas and building surfaces contribute to the cooling of ground temperatures and associated heat islands. The study has demonstrated that by cooling a city, it is possible to directly reduce energy use by buildings, improve air quality, and improve the pedestrian realm.

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

4.09

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Guidelines

1’-2’ min.

1. Use street trees and other landscaping to complement street lighting and sidewalk amenities in creating a distinct character for specific streets and neighborhoods.

2. Street trees should be planted between 15 and 25 feet on-center, depending upon species, to create a continuous canopy and buffering effect between the roadway and the sidewalk.

13’ 8’

Figure 4.14: Street tree clearance

3. Trees are especially valuable to pedestrians at intersections, where they are most likely to spend time waiting to cross.

Without street trees, intersections can be overwhelmingly large expanses of asphalt. Clearly, the need for trees must be balanced with concerns for sight distance and clear views of traffic light. However, strategic placement and diligent pruning of trees can vastly improve pedestrian conditions at intersections.

4. Pruning of street trees should be done so that branches do not interfere with pedestrians and parked vehicles. As shown in Figure 4.14, the minimum vertical clearance should be 8 feet along the sidewalk at the edge of tree well, and 13 feet along the street from the top of curb. Trees should be pruned for 1 to 2 feet of clearance to building façade and building signage.

All pruning should be done under the supervision of a certified arborist.

Figure 4.15: Example of a tree well that provides ample space for roots. However, the use of pavers compacts the soil preventing the intake of oxygen.

A tree grate would be a more appropriate solution.

Structural Soil Structural soil is a gap graded base rock material with a clay loam soil component. The rock easily compresses and in between the rocks are large pores only partially filled with soil. The remaining pore space allows for water, and root growth, and has been shown to direct the tree’s root growth down rather than to the surface where it may damage paving.

4.10

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

Tree grate or lawn

Extent of structural soil mixture Figure 4.16: Sidewalk section with structural soil (Source: City of Sunnyvale’s Parking Lot Landscaping Guidelines)

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

4. Trees need adequate surface area for their roots to grow, given that most tree species have the majority of their roots in the first 18 inches of soil. A planting area of 36 square feet per tree is optimal (the standard four-foot by four-foot tree well does not provide a healthy environment for trees over the long term). Similar to tree spacing requirements, tree well size should vary with species and soil conditions.

5. Municipalities should explore the use of “structural soil” (sometimes referred to as “engineered soil”) as a planting medium for trees adjacent to roadways, or sidewalks, and within parking lots. This can both improve the health of the tree and reduce pavement upheaval (see Figure 4.16).

6. A landscape strip—the landscaped area between the street and the sidewalk also known as a lawn, verge, or boulevard— should have a minimum width of 6 feet, with a preferred width of 8 feet. Some jurisdictions have irrigation water conservation standards that require a minimum 8 foot width to avoid ‘over spray’ of water onto paved surfaces.

Figure 4.17: Proper tree selection, planting, and maintenance adds to the visual interest and pedestrian comfort levels of a street.

7. Trees should be kept out of the “edge zone” of the sidewalk to protect them from car doors and overhangs. Tree guards may also be used to protect trees from vandalism.

8. Topping and severe pruning should be avoided. Proper maintenance of trees should allow trees to retain their natural form.

9. Hedges or trellises with vines should be used to screen streetfacing parking lots from the sidewalk. See Section 6.2C, Screening.

Figure 4.18: Bulbouts like this one in Palo Alto provide space for trees and other street landscaping.

10. Street lighting should be coordinated with tree selection, placement, and pruning, so that canopies do not sit directly below street lighting. Poor placement of lighting in relation to tree canopies both decreases the amount of light reaching the ground and increases the amount of light reflected towards the sky.

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

4.11

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

4.3

Placemaking and Navigation

A. Signage Commercial signage is an important part of the street environment, but is often scaled to cater to adjacent vehicular traffic.

This reinforces the dominance of vehicles at the expense of pedestrians. Depending upon the character of a street, a balance needs to be achieved between signage for vehicles and signage for pedestrians.

The size of signage dictates its orientation. Large signs can attract the attention of passing autos, but offer little of interest to pedestrians. Small signs can signal that pedestrians are welcome by catching the eye with interesting detail and inviting further investigation.

These principles apply to both commercial signage denoting local businesses as well as wayfinding signage. Wayfinding signage indicates locations of nearby destinations, such as arrows or vicinity maps. If planned comprehensively, both commercial and wayfinding signage can help a district to convey a sense of itself as a cohesive neighborhood.

Figure 4.19: Pedestrian-scaled signage is sized and oriented to be readable by those on the sidewalk, and contributes visually interesting detail to the community.

Considerations Accessibility Signage on walkways and sidewalks needs to be kept out of the five-foot clear zone necessary for wheelchair access, and above the eight-foot clear height for the visually impaired.

Relation to Transit Transit riders in particular need wayfinding signage, both to direct them from transit stops to nearby destinations and back.

Implementation and Relation to Current Standards and Practices Some sign ordinances in local zoning codes do not have commercial signage requirements, while some have requirements that do not support pedestrians. Codes may have to be changed to support pedestrian-oriented signage.

Figure 4.20: Finding the most direct route to a destination is especially important for pedestrians.

Clear maps, like this one in Mountain View, help pedestrians find their location and destination quickly and easily.

4.12

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

The San Jose Redevelopment Agency has developed a downtown signage plan that includes pedestrian wayfinding signs.

Other cities such as Berkeley have signs along their designated bicycle routes that give distances to neighborhood centers and local public facilities. Providing such route and distance information is useful for pedestrians.

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Guidelines 1. Consider implementing a system of wayfinding signs for pedestrians in pedestrian-oriented districts and near transit stops.

2. In pedestrian-supportive areas, signage dimensions should be kept at a pedestrian scale and demonstrate a high level of detailing and craftsmanship. Pole-mounted signs should not be allowed within or adjacent to walkways or sidewalks.

3. In other areas, signage should be provided for both pedestrians and drivers. Commercial, pole-mounted signs should not exceed a height of 12 feet and should not be located within walkways or sidewalks.

4. Sidewalk signage should be incorporated into the Furnishings Zone so as not to impede wheelchair movement or reduce the Throughway Zone.

5. Externally illuminated signs should be used, as such lights tend to illuminate signs and not pedestrians, minimizing glare. In pedestrian supportive areas internally illuminated signs, with the exception of neon, should be avoided as they are typically designed to attract drivers and are too intense for pedestrians.

6. Flexibility should be granted to artisans and craftspeople who may wish to create unique signage that may contribute to the sense of place.

7. Signage can be incorporated into building elements, such as awnings or architectural details.

8. Street numbers should be visible not only to passing pedestrians but motorists as well to prevent inattentive driving associated with motorists searching for addresses.

Figure 4.21: Public art can add playful twists to utilitarian functions such as public seating.

9. Banners can be added to lighting poles to contribute to a sense of district identity.

B. Public Art Many of the improvements suggested by these guidelines will be constructed using public money, and will therefore include a public art budget. Pedestrian improvements create a unique opportunity for people to see public art during their everyday activities and to distinguish an area with unique features. Public art can serve as traffic calming, enticing drivers to slow down and be more aware of their surroundings.

Figure 4.22: An oversized chess game provides art and whimsy to the pedestrian realm, and invites interaction.

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

4.13

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Considerations On a large scale, public art has the ability to unify a district with a theme, and, at a pedestrian scale, it can provide visual interest for passersby .

Public art is not a replacement for good urban design. While a mural can mitigate the effects of a blank facade, such negative features should be avoided in the first place.

Public art is an effective means of creating a neighborhood identity, and should reflect the character and history of the community.

Figure 4.23: Creekside trails, such as the Los Gatos Creek Trail, provide high-quality pedestrian and bicycle connections through the community.

All installations do not need an educational mission—art can be playful.

Guidelines 1. Public art should be located so as to be a pedestrian amenity.

A piece can act as a focal point in a park or plaza or present a “surprise” along a pedestrian path that rewards the passerby with visual interest.

2. Consideration should be given to incorporating art into otherwise mundane street elements such as light poles, benches, trash cans, and utility boxes.

4.4

Creating Non-Roadway Connections

In Santa Clara County, development patterns have favored low street connectivity, giving rise to buildings that are set back behind parking lots or landscaped areas, ‘campus-style’ sites that feature multiple, widely-spaced buildings, and streets that deadend instead of connecting with other streets. In this setting, sidewalks alone cannot complete the pedestrian system; non-roadway connections are also needed to provide high pedestrian access.

Trails, of the longer, recreational variety, are one type of non-roadway pedestrian walkway. They usually run through a park or alongside a waterway, and are used by walkers, runners, bicyclists, rollerbladers, and horseback riders. These trails are important for pedestrians and bicyclists, and other documents provide guidance on their creation, including the Santa Clara County Parks and Recreation Department’s Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use and Management Guidelines (1999).

Figure 4.24: A landscaped pedestrian accessway linking a development’s parking lot with street.

4.14

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

These sections discuss another type of non-roadway connection, one that is shorter and serves more to efficiently connect pedestrians to their destinations than to provide recreational opportu-

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

nities. These walkways are not immediately adjacent to a street; they connect to pedestrian facilities and building entrances to enhance overall local connectivity and shorten pedestrian travel distance.

Non-roadway connections can come in the following forms.

Pedestrian pathways connect sidewalks with building entrances where buildings are not immediately adjacent to the street. On especially large sites with multiple buildings widely spaced, pathways are essential for connecting one building to another and all buildings to the street and sidewalk.

Midblock accessways connect sidewalks through blocks in between buildings where blocks are long (see “Super Blocks” sidebar). These accessways decrease the out-of-direction travel for pedestrians traversing areas with widely-spaced streets.

Cul-de-sac connectors make pedestrian connections where streets dead-end. In such neighborhoods, destinations that are close by can be rendered un-walkable by circuitous routes. Cul-de-sac connectors decrease walking distances, improving pedestrian connectivity. These connectors can also be designed to enable emergency vehicle access.

Stairways are non-roadway connections used where gradechanges necessitate stairs instead of paths. This complication precipitates a number of guidelines, which warrant discussion as a separate section.

Figure 4.25: This midblock accessway in Mountain View provides direct and comfortable pedestrian access from a public parking lot to shop and restaurant entrances on Castro Street.

Mitigating the “Super Block” Through the course of suburban development, “super blocks” were often created either outright or by vacating existing streets with the intent to accommodate larger development. The consequence is that, if not property planned, buildings within these blocks have little relationship to the street, and the blocks themselves can be significant obstacles to pedestrian circulation in the neighborhood. Under these circumstances, connectivity is important not only along the street, but also for other buildings throughout the entire block.

Figure 4.26: A disconnected block

Figure 4.27: Same block, “stitched”

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

4.15

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

A. Pathways/Accessways

Preferred --28' Preferred 28'

Considerations Accessibility Pedestrian walkways should be constructed to meet accessibility requirements for cross-slopes, grades, surfaces, and vertical clearances, as discussed in Section 1.3A, Accessibility.

Relation to Context 10' 10'

8' 8'

10' 10'

Minimum -- 13' 13'

Non-roadway connections may be difficult to implement or sustain in neighborhoods that perceive public walkways to be unsafe. These concerns might be assuaged with lighting or sight-line improvements, or by building consensus on the importance of local pedestrian connectivity.

New Development vs. Retrofit

4' 4'

5' 5'

4' 4'

Figure 4.28: Midblock Accessways and cul-de-sac connectors dimensions

Pedestrian connections should be included in all new development. In existing areas, connections can be retrofitted through public easements or outright purchase by jurisdictions.

Relation to Transit Transit stop location relative to nearby destinations warrants particular attention. Stops are often located on arterials with widely-spaced intersections, resulting in long walking distances to adjacent neighborhoods. In these situations, nonroadway connections can help to reduce walking distance for transit riders to and from nearby destinations.

Guidelines

Figure 4.29: Pedestrian cul-de-sac connectors like this one in Palo Alto preserve pedestrian connectivity and provide small neighborhood open spaces.

1. Walkway alignments should be as straight as possible to minimize out-of-direction travel and provide uninterrupted lines of sight for security purposes.

2. Landscape improves pedestrian comfort on non-roadway connections, just as it does on sidewalks, and should be provided on both sides of the walkway, especially if the immediate surroundings do not feature landscaping. Recommended dimensions of landscaped areas are in the range of four to ten feet on either side of the walkway, as noted in Figure 4.28.

3. Lighting levels should be at least 1.8 foot-candles to increase usersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; sense of security.

4.16

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

4. Gates can be used to address concerns about privacy and child safety, but should be unlocked and designed to communicate that the walkway is accessible to the public.

5. When a non-roadway connection does not appear to be a public walkway, signage informing where the connection leads can help to indicate its intended public use.

6. For cul-de-sac connectors, pedestrian access can be combined with designs that allow access for emergency vehicles, such as fire trucks. This requires a minimum 20 foot right-ofway with a reinforced surface such as “turf block” which is an open cell unit paver that can be filled with vegetation or gravel (see Figure 4.30).

Figure 4.30: Cul-de-sac connectors can improve pedestrian and emergency vehicle access.

B. Stairways Considerations General Prior discussions of guidelines for walkways also apply here, but stairways require additional considerations.

Stair placement, landscaping and lighting all contribute to making pedestrians feel safe and secure, as does visibility to and from the stairway.

Accessibility A stair system has limited use for pedestrians with mobility problems, especially for those in wheelchairs, scooters, and walkers.

Figure 4.31: Stairways like this one in Saratoga, can provide important pedestrian connections, but require careful design to feel safe and comfortable.

Stairs with handrails, resting areas, and uniform risers and treads can accommodate older pedestrians, those with canes and crutches, and those with sight disabilities.

T > 11”

Alternative accessible routes, either along public sidewalks or via ramps, should be provided where possible.

R

Guidelines 1. Signage should be provided to indicate that the stair is public right-of-way. The signage should inform the users about where the stair leads, e.g. “Public Stairway to NW 55 Avenue.”

2. The riser height and tread width of each stair should be uniform, with treads no less than 11 inches wide. Risers should be solid with nosing undersides. The following formula can be used to determine appropriate tread to riser ratio: 2R +T = 26 to 27 inches, where R = riser and T = tread (see Figure 4.32).

T > 11”

R

T = tread R = riser

Figure 4.32: Acceptable stair profiles with nosing options

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

4.17

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

3. The minimum width for a public stairway should be no less than five feet, and should comply with local building and fire codes if part of an exit way system.

4. The maximum heights between landings should be no more than 12 feet, with lesser heights recommended to provide more frequent rest areas and better visibility between landings. The minimum length of the landing should be five feet or equal to the width of the stairway. The design of landings should consider both their use as overlooks and resting areas, and should provide seating when space allows.

5. A continuous handrail that complies with ADA requirements should be provided.

6. Stairways should be designed to prevent the accumulation of water.

7. Side ramps for bicycles and strollers should be considered.

8. Surface materials should be durable, provide a slip-resistant walking surfaceâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;including a contrasting color as per ADAâ&#x20AC;&#x201D; and be subject to regular inspection and maintenance.

4.5 Areas of Special Consideration A. Children and School Zones

Figure 4.33: The unique needs of children warrant special attention to the design of a safe pedestrian environment (source: Dan Burton).

4.18

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

From a pedestrian perspective, children are distinct from adults in walking speed, ability to judge speed and distance, and predictable walking behavior. Specifically, this populationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s range in these three areas is wider and includes a lower end than that of adults. The unique needs of children warrant special attention to the design of a safe pedestrian environment, and nowhere is this more apparent than in school zones. Unfortunately, streets and neighborhoods surrounding schools often lack adequate pedestrian facilities, compelling parents to drive their children to school, even if distances are walkable, putting in place a cycle whereby schools generate high vehicle traffic, further degrading the pedestrian environment.

Because of their special needs, provisions should be made for schools and school zones to make walking a comfortable and safe travel mode, including focused attention to vehicle speeds, street crossings, and school site design. The following are considerations for addressing these design issues. Additionally, Chapter 5 of the CDT Manual illustrates programmatic ways to integrate a school site into a neighborhood.

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Considerations General School-age pedestrians typically walk at lower speeds and are less able to judge appropriate speeds, distances, and gaps in traffic due to developmental and visual restrictions.

Young children have a typical eye height of only three feet and their peripheral vision is not yet developed.

Because of their small size and less predictable movements, children are less easily seen by drivers.

Children have shorter attention spans and are more likely be impatient at crosswalks.

Figure 4.34: Narrow streets and a crossing guard help to make this Palo Alto school crossing kidfriendly.

Since children do not drive, they lack the understanding and ability to predict a driver’s intentions at a crossing point or intersection.

Adults often overestimate children’s capacity to deal with traffic.

Accessibility Consideration should be given to the accessibility needs of disabled small children, which may not be consistent with the needs of disabled adults. For example, pedestrian push buttons may be too high for children in wheelchairs.

New Development vs. Retrofit School bus stops can be integrated into the design of new development or retrofitted to existing conditions.

Relation to Transit Bus stops require sufficient area away from the street for a group of children to congregate and wait.

Implementation and Relation to Existing Guidelines and Practices The State of California created the “Safe Routes to School” program, a partnership with schools to address pedestrian safety. This type of program covers many of the elements mentioned in this section, and generally provides technical assistance and funding for physical improvements to school walking routes (www.saferoutestoschool.org).

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

4.19

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Guidelines 1. For vehicle speed management, available tools include: reduced-speed zones, warning signs alerting drivers that they are in a school zone, narrow travel lanes, and traffic calming techniques, as discussed earlier in these guidelines.

Figures 4.35 and 4.36: Signage is necessary in school zones to caution drivers.

2. For street crossings within school zones, achieving high visibility requires an unobstructed visual field between motorists and pedestrians. This may require relocating street furniture, utility poles, and mailboxes away from the crossing, limiting landscaping at the crossing point, or restricting on-street parking within 30 feet of the crossing. The following techniques can further enhance school crossings and are addressed in this document: Special crosswalk striping and â&#x20AC;&#x153;School Crossingâ&#x20AC;? signs; Pedestrian bulb-outs; Pedestrian refuges; Technological devices at signalized intersections such as countdown pedestrian signals, audible signals, and passive pedestrian detection systems; Student-patrolled crosswalks or crossing guards; guards should be present when school-age pedestrians exceed 40 and vehicle traffic exceeds 350 during each of any two hours (not necessarily consecutive) and there is no alternate controlled crossing within 600 feet; and Signalized crossings with pedestrian activators at midblock locations.

3. Within school sites, attention should be paid to: Well-defined pedestrian access routes from the campus borders to building entrances; Separating auto drop-off areas from bus loading and unloading areas, to minimize conflicts; Secure bike parking close to building entrances; and Minimizing the amount of parking provided.

4.

4.20

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

Throughout the community, school bus stop locations should be planned with enough space on the sidewalk for waiting bus riders.

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

B. Senior Centers Areas with high concentrations of seniors warrant special attention because of their special needs as pedestrians. Seniors have lower walking speeds, slower reaction times, and higher occurrences of mobility impairment than the general adult population.

They benefit from design that gives them an advantage, such as that which promotes more driver caution and decreases crossing exposure time. In particular, senior centers generate high amounts of senior pedestrian activity, especially if local services or transit stops are nearby, since many seniors have ceased to drive.

The sidewalks and street crossings in neighborhoods with high concentrations of seniors should be given particular priority for implementing the sidewalk, traffic calming and street crossing treatments detailed earlier in these guidelines. As seniors have a higher percentage of mobility-impaired, accessibility provisions are especially important here including pedestrian crossing signal timing that accounts for slower walking speeds. Signage that warns drivers of the presence of seniors can also help by raising driver awareness.

Figure 4.37: Many pedestrians are seniors and have special mobility issues (source: Dan Burton).

C. Safety in Work Zones Construction projects should not compromise pedestrian accessibility. Pedestrians are sensitive to temporary disruptions in walking routes because of the relatively high amount of out-of-direction travel it precipitates. Therefore, sidewalk closures should be avoided when possible, and viable detours should be provided.

Traffic cones or K-Rail

Considerations Accessibility Walkways must be clearly identified, wheelchair-accessible, and protected from moving vehicles, holes, and other debris.

Temporar y Ramp

Work Zone

Relation to Transit Construction zones are often disruptive to transit service, stops, and access.

Guidelines 1. Pedestrians should be separated from work site vehicles, equipment and operations, but also from passing vehicular traffic.

2. Pedestrians should be provided with a safe, accessible, and convenient path that duplicates, as nearly as possible, the most desirable characteristics of sidewalks or footpaths.

Figure 4.38: Parking lane used for pedestrian path (Adapted from Oregon Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan)

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

4.21

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

3. Where construction must close a sidewalk, the parking lane should be used for a pedestrian detour route and temporary improvements should be made to protect pedestrians from directly adjacent traffic, as in Figure 4.38. The parking lane should also be the location for construction signage.

4. Advanced warning to pedestrians should be provided at intersections where they are required to cross to the other side of the street to avoid a midblock construction site.

5. Access to transit stops should be maintained. If a temporary stop relocation is necessary, then appropriate signage should indicate as such.

6. Flourescent plastic fencing should be used as a barrier to improve visibility for the sight-impaired.

7. Construction inspection staff should be able to recognize improper and unsafe pedestrian facilities during construction as part of the inspection process.

4.22

Creating a Pedestrian Realm

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

5. Pedestrian Access to Transit Pedestrian linkages play an integral role in establishing an effective and safe transit system. An improved pedestrian realm makes transit a more viable mode while an improved transit system will help make a community less car-dependant and more pedestrian-friendly. This symbiotic relationship highlights the importance of improving pedestrian access to transit.

Throughout the PTG, reference is made to a particular guidelineâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s relationship to transit. This section discusses more thoroughly the design considerations necessary in making access to light rail transit (LRT) and bus facilities safe and convenient for the pedestrian. LRT pedestrian crossings are also covered in this section.

5.1

Bus Stop Design and Access

Figure 5.1: Maintaining safe, direct and efficient access to transit for pedestrians improves the viability of both modes.

Since bus stops are generally located on sidewalks, pedestrian access is relatively straightforward. Appendix A of the CDT Manual includes comprehensive design guidance on bus stops that includes discussions of bus stop placement, configurations, and amenities, all with considerations for pedestrian access and accessibility. Additional guidelines address the provision highquality routes to bus stops. Areas immediately surrounding bus stops, then, are particularly effective locations for pedestrian crossing enhancements (discussed in Chapter 3, Street Crossings) and shortcuts that reduce out-of-direction travel for pedestrians (discussed in Section 4.4, Creating Non-Roadway Connections).

5.2

LRT Station Design and Access

Other resources already provide guidance on design of light rail stations, including appendix C of the CDT Manual and VTAâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Light Rail Transit Design Criteria Manual. These documents, however, do not directly address pedestrian access to the stations.

This document aims to provide guidelines for making pedestrian access to light rail stations as seamless, safe, and comfortable as possible.

Pedestrian access to light rail stations can be a complex issue, because light rail stations are often located in the street median, and involve crossing both vehicle traffic lanes and light rail tracks. Additionally, the responsibility for pedestrian access near stations becomes a shared one between local jurisdictions and VTA.

Pedestrian Access to Transit

5.01

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Considerations Accessibility Transit platforms and facilities must be ADA accessible. Refer to VTA’s Light Rail Transit Design Criteria Manual for guidance.

Implementation and Relation to Existing Guidelines and Practices The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), under General Order 75C, requires VTA and other transit agencies to apply for permission to construct grade crossings across rail tracks, including pedestrian crossings. The warning devices discussed in General Order 75C, however, do not include some of the more advanced and effective devices, such pedestrian gates and swing gates. However, the CPUC has approved the use of these devices at VTA and at other light rail properties in California.

Guidelines 1. VTA and local jurisdictions should develop a coordinated planning process to provide straightforward, direct, and safe pedestrian access to station platforms. This should include stipulations for VTA and municipalities to share in the planning and funding of a high-quality pedestrian realm near LRT. 2. Ensure that transit stations and stops are served by the primary pedestrian system. If necessary, require new development to provide streets with sidewalks or pedestrian walkways between transit facilities and building entrances.

Table 5.1: Pedestrian Access to Transit Measures

Operational Characteristics

Neighborhood Streets

Volume (vehicles per day) Typical Speed (mph) Adjacent Land Uses

Minor Residential

Major Residential

< 2000 15-25 Residential

District/Downtown Streets Mixed Use Street

R&D Office Park/ Industrial Street

Community Street

Regional Street

Commercial Street

Urban Roads

2000-8000

<10,000

9,000 -15,000

varies

7000 - 15,000 +

20,000 +

15,000 +

15,000 +

25

25

25

15-30

25 - 40

30 +

30-35

35-40

Mixed Use

“Highest Intensity” Mixed Use

Office/Indstrial

Mixed Use or Residential

varies

Low Ped Intensive Uses

Residential

Appropriate Design Measures Special Crosswalk Markings Overhead Signage Bulbouts Midblock Crossings Refuge Islands Pedestrian Corrals Over/Underpasses

Most Appropriate

5.02

Corridor Streets

Main Street

Moderately Appropriate

Pedestrian Access to Transit

May be appropriate with mitigating circumstances

Mixed Use

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Walkways should be distinct from parking lot or street pavement and feature trees and lighting in accordance with the respective guidelines in this document.

3. Focused effort should be applied to providing direct access to transit facilities. This may include bridges over streams, culde-sac connectors, and walkways through parking lots and to adjacent development.

4. Transit stations with park and ride lots, taxi stands, bus transfer facilities and “Kiss-and-Ride” drop-off zones should be designed in such a way that pedestrian access is evident, direct and unimpeded.

5. All pedestrian crossings within a quarter mile of the transit facility should have enhanced crossing measures consistent with the guidelines in Chapter 3, Street Crossings, and Table 5.1. Specially marked, high visibility crosswalks should be the baseline improvement, with additional improvements such as pedestrian bulbouts and refuge islands strongly considered.

Pedestrian over/undercrossings should be considered only for streets of excessive speed and volume.

6. Where light rail runs within a public roadway, that street should be given priority for improvements, with secondary priority on side streets connecting to the LRT line.

Pedestrian improvements should be identified by mapping routes to and from stations. Particular attention should be paid to land uses such as schools, community centers, commercial uses and other pedestrian trip generators.

7. At interesctections with LRT stations, consider signalization that includes a phase during which pedestrians can cross from one side of the street to a median to allow faster crossings for those accessing the station.

8. Traffic signalization in the vicinity of transit facilities should be timed with fewer phases and shorter cycles to facilitate pedestrian circulation. Consideration should also be given to taking phases out of progression to give preference to the pedestrian.

9. Devices such as audible warnings, countdown signals and “Train Approaching” signals should also be considered.

10. Where pedestrians have to access station platforms via midblock crossings, the crossings should be signalized for both pedestrians and traffic—either with overhead or in-pavement signals—and the crosswalk should have a different color/texture for visual emphasis.

Pedestrian Access to Transit

5.03

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

5.3

Figure 5.2: Automatic gates at this Caltrain station prevent pedestrians from crossing tracks when trains are entering and exiting the station.

Pedestrian Crossings of LRT Tracks

Pedestrians are not always attentive to their surroundings at all times and light rail vehicles (LRVs) are nearly silent, even at higher speeds. Furthermore, most pedestrians will attempt to take the shortest travel path. Thus, unless adequate controls are installed, pedestrians may cross an LRT right-of-way at unsafe locations.

This situation may be acceptable in downtown San Jose, where LRT speeds are low, but can be problematic where speeds are higher. The following guidelines discuss safe crossing opportunities for pedestrians.

Implementation and Relation to Existing Guidelines and Practices The PUC requires VTA and other transit agencies to apply for permission (under General Order 75C) to construct grade crossings across rail tracks including pedestrian crossings.

Guidelines 1. At station locations within the street median, where light rail operating speed is under 35 mph, the following controls should be installed: queuing areas with a pedestrian activation button; countdown pedestrian signal heads; and â&#x20AC;&#x153;Train Aproachingâ&#x20AC;? warning signs.

2. Use different colors and textures to distinguish portions of crossings that span LRT tracks.

3. Between stations, pedestrians should be channeled to cross LRT tracks at designated locations only using designs such as the pedestrian corralâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;designed to turn pedestrians toward the approaching LRVs (see Section 3.2D, Pedestrian Refuge Islands).

4. Pedestrian automatic gates should be installed at all pedestrian crossings with limited sight distances and operating speeds greater than 35 mph. A single-unit gate should be installed. Where light rail speeds are below 35 mph and there is a defined pedestrian pathway (i.e., at a station location or sidewalk), manual swing gates should be used to alert pedestrians to the LRT tracks by forcing them to pause before crossing (see Figure 5.2).

5. At high speed LRT crossings, bells ring while gates lower down. Provisions should be made for audio devices to keep warning pedestrians about on-coming LRVs until they have passed and gates opened.

5.04

Pedestrian Access to Transit

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

6.

Site and Building Design

6.1

Building Design and Site Development

Guidance on pedestrian-friendly design cannot be complete without a discussion of building and site design. Since Chapter 3 of the CDT Manual covers this topic in depth, this chapter will touch only on the aspects most pertinent to pedestrians. Such aspects include pedestrian site access, active street frontages, design for climate, and treatment of vacant lots.

A. Pedestrian Site Access For places to truly support pedestrian activity, a good public pedestrian network is necessary but not sufficient. Final destinations of pedestrians also need to be accessible and friendly. Sites with good internal pedestrian circulation systems are permeable and welcoming to pedestrians.

In an ideal condition, buildings are adjacent to the surrounding streets and sidewalks, rather than separated from them by parking lots, and large sites are permeated with a dense public street network. When this condition is infeasible, or when a more campus-like environment is desired, then a network of pedestrian paths becomes necessary to connect all building entrances to each other and to the surrounding public sidewalks.

Figure 6.1: This street is made interesting by a building articulated with lights, windows, awnings, and architectural features.

In these situations, designers should use the guidance provided in Section 4.4, Creating Non-Roadway Connections, to create strong pedestrian connections through development sites.

B. Creating Active Frontages A supportive walking environment along a street is only partially determined by street and sidewalk design, as discussed in Chapters 2 and 4. The other determinant is the design of adjacent land uses, or street frontage. Street frontage containing buildings can define the vertical profile of this outdoor space, becoming a prominent visual piece of the street environment (see Figures 6.2 and 6.3).

Creating visual interest with street frontages can dramatically affect the walking environment by providing a sense of enclosure, and by making trips more pleasant, thereby extending the distance pedestrians are willing to walk. For example, a walk past storefronts and cafes is more pleasant and can appear shorter than one past blank walls and parking lots, even if the distances are similar. In addition, the pedestrian activity produced by active street frontages adds to the visual interest and sense of security of the street.

Figure 6.2: Liner buildings with storefronts provide street frontage along sidewalk, with parking lot behind. Similar liner buildings could provide street frontage for shopping malls.

Figure 6.3: Landscaped thruway between liner buildings in Figure 6.2 provides access to parking.

Building Design and Site Development

6.01

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Communities can apply this concept by supplementing high-quality street and sidewalk design with buildings placed next to the street to create continual street frontage. Street frontage increases visual interest when it includes a high variation in building profiles achieved through the placement of windows, doors, awnings, balconies, and architectural details, collectively called “articulation”.

Considerations Figure 6.4: Building recesses provide usable outdoor space despite the weather.

General Articulation provides visual interest and protection from the sun and weather, and reinforces the feeling of enclosure for the pedestrian.

“Transparent” interfaces between land uses and the street, like windows, help establish a connection between pedestrians and indoor activity that provides interest and a sense of security.

Physical maintenance of building exteriors affects pedestrians’ comfort and perception of security.

Active street frontages foster an increased sense of security.

Urban planner Jane Jacobs coined the phrase “eyes on the street” to describe how the users of a street environment themselves become an informal system of surveillance that discourages clandestine activity.

The optimal level of consistent frontage and articulation depends on the district and land use (see Table 6.1).

For Residential Design The orientation and design of homes can dramatically affect the pedestrian environment of a street. Homes with modest setbacks, generous porches, stoops, large windows, and a front walk provide friendly interfaces between public and private spaces, helping to build a community-oriented street.

Many housing developments of recent decades have oriented themselves inward, focusing mainly on the private space in backyards. These developments are often referred to as “garage-scapes,” because the garage is the dominant architectural feature interfacing with the street as in Figure 6.5.

Figure 6.5: Typical suburban “garagescapes” on residential streets create hostile environments.

6.02

Building Design and Site Development

Many residential developments also back onto surrounding collector and arterial streets with fences or soundwalls, leaving the streets to be dominated by vehicular traffic.

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Table 6.1: Maximum Building Setback and Minimum Street Frontage Land Use Classification

Urban Form/Intensity

Max. Building Setback

Min. Building Frontage

Mixed-Use, Civic, or Employment District

Urban Core

0 feet

70 to 80%

Mixed-Use, Civic, or Employment District

Urban Strip

0 to 5 feet

65 to 75%

Mixed-Use, Civic, or Employment District

Suburban

0 to 10 feet

60 to 70%

Residential District

Urban Core

0 to 8 feet

75 to 90%

Residential District

Urban Strip

0 to 12 feet

65 to 75%

Residential District

Suburban

8 to 18 feet

65 to 75%

Guidelines 1. Buildings should front onto the street. Table 6.1 represents “rules of thumb” for the percentage of street frontage that should consist of articulated buildings depending upon context.

2. Buildings of appropriate height can effectively define the street and visually narrow it (see Figure 6.6).

3. In a mixed-use commercial area, an appropriate building height is at least two stories, with ground-floor retail and upper-floor residential or office. This height effectively defines the street.

4. Primary building entrances, such as the front door to a home, the entry to a store, or the lobby entry to an office building, should front onto adjacent public streets or entry plazas.

5. The depth of building setbacks should correspond with those in Table 6.1.

Figure 6.6: A recommended minimum ratio of vertical height to street width is 1:3. For example, a 66’ wide street could achieve a visual definition with 22’ high buildings (a two story building or a one story building with a taller roof or parapet wall). The lower the ratio (i.e. 1:2) the more definition achieved.

6. Balconies, awnings, and colonnades should be allowed to encroach up to 6 feet into the sidewalk area of the public right-of-way and be protected by easements, but height clearances should not be compromised. Designs should also consider discouraging birds from roosting and creating maintenance problems.

7. Street-level windows should encompass 50% of the facade length fronting onto the street in mixed-use areas and up to 80% for storefronts.

8. Blank facades and mirrored or darkly tinted glass should be avoided, as they obscure the visual connection between the pedestrian and activity in the building.

9. Empty store windows should be kept clean and used for displays by other businesses or community groups.

Figure 6.7: Placing car access to the rear frees up space in the front of houses for pedestrian-friendly features such as windows, doors, porches, and sidewalk-connecting walkways.

Building Design and Site Development

6.03

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Residential Design 1. Street frontage should feature large windows, entryways, porches, and front doors, rather than garages or walled-in patios.

2. Long stretches of walls, fences, and berms should be avoided.

If sound barriers are absolutely necessary, break up the walls into sections, alternate with landscape features, and include gates that provide access to the street.

3. Stoops and open porches should be encouraged and allowed to encroach into the front yard setback. This provides for a friendlier streetscape where pedestrians can interact easily with their neighbors.

C. Designing for the Climate Santa Clara County has an ideal climate for walking, but the hot, dry summers can be uncomfortable for pedestrians. Conversely, the winters can bring heavy rains that can dampen enthusiasm for walking. Simple guidelines applied to development abutting the pedestrian realm can provide a respite from excessive sun or rain.

2.

1.

4.

3.

6.

5.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

Shade trees Deep eaves Arcades Awnings Recessed entries windows 6. Arbors

Figure 6.8: Architectural climate controls

Considerations General In a climate such as that in the Santa Clara Valley, continuous shade is invaluable to comfortable walking during the summer months.

The position and intensity of the sun varies with time of day and directional orientation, shining most intensely in the afternoon and on southern exposures. The orientation of shade treatments should be based upon sun position.

Guidelines 1. Development directly abutting the street should provide shading via awnings and arcades. See Figure 6.8.

2. Trees should be equally spaced along pedestrian routes to provide a minimum of 70% shade during the summer seasons.

3. Landscaping should be used to mitigate the heat reflected from adjacent paved areas (refer to Section 4.2C, Landscape).

Figure 6.9: This arcade in downtown Palo Alto also offers shade to the passing pedestrian.

6.04

Building Design and Site Development

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

D. Vacant Lots and Buildings Vacant lots and buildings are often a source of blight for a neighborhood and are detrimental to the quality of the pedestrian environment.

Considerations Simple housekeeping initiatives such as irrigation, weeding, and grafitti abatement show a high level of care for neighborhood facilities.

Local jurisdictions can implement a blight ordinance requiring property owners to maintain vacant lots and buildings and assessing violators a reinspection and enforcement fee.

Guidelines 1. Vacant lots should be kept clear of debris, and be enclosed by an attractive and functional fence. Landscape screening or community murals can provide visual interest.

2. Vacant lots should be considerred for temporary community garden sites.

3. Vacant buildings should be maintained to the level of occupied buildings.

6.2

Parking Design

Auto parking is a necessary piece of a functional urban environment, but it should not compromise the pedestrian environment.

Parking facilities can be integrated into neighborhoods or specific sites, so that, rather than alienating the pedestrian, instead allows for safe and uncomfortable passage. It is helpful to remember that once a car is parked, its passengers become pedestrians walking to their destination.

A. Parking Policy and Location Considerations General Expanses of parking lots break up the urban environment, degrading walking conditions.

The compact and mixed-use patterns of pedestrian-supportive areas can reduce parking demand by making shared parking feasible. Typical parking standards specify the number of required spaces per square foot of use based on very general peak-hour demand estimates. Mixed-use development often

Figure 6.10: Vast parking lots can create barriers in a community if not well-designed.

Building Design and Site Development

6.05

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

includes uses with differing peak periods. Thus, overall parking requirements can be reduced if the appropriate uses are mixed. For example, offices need parking during the day, while entertainment uses generally need parking in the evening.

Research indicates that Americans walk an average of 800 feet, or 1/8 of a mile, from car to workplace (Cervero, 1993).

Improvements made to the pedestrian realm will reduce perceived distances and increase the distance an employee is willing to walk.

Figure 6.11: Parking in this garage is hidden behind retail frontage addressing the street.

“Shared” Streets “Shared” streets are an innovative way to redesign a residential street to calm traffic, enhance the social role of the street in the neighborhood, and provide opportunities for increased street parking.

The boundaries between street and sidewalk are blurred, pedestrians are given priority over cars, and vehicular speeds are reduced.

The perception of auto dependency is fostered by an urban landscape dominated by parking lots.

Connections between parking areas are important to maximize the utility of shared parking. These connections minimize the need for curb cuts along the street, reduce conflicts between drivers and pedestrians, and maximize available onstreet parking (refer to Section 2.4D, Site Access Controls).

Implementation and Relation to Current Standards and Practices Cities can reduce parking requirements by using shared parking calculations for mixed-use developments, transit-oriented development overlay ordinances, and car-share programs.

Guidelines 1. The extent of street-facing parking lots should be minimized.

Parking lots should be located towards the rear or along one side of sites, so that the majority of the street frontage is defined by buildings.

2. For retail uses, parking areas should be designed with pedestrian connections that allow visitors to park once to visit multiple destinations within walking distance rather than drive from parking lot to parking lot.

3. In mixed-use areas, parking requirements should be reduced to account for shared parking.

4. On-street parking should count towards a development’s parking requirement, thereby reducing the number of offstreet parking spaces required.

5. Parking requirements should be reduced to account for access to transit facilities.

Figure 6.12: An example of a shared street

6.06

Building Design and Site Development

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

6. As properties redevelop, their parking should be designed with connections to adjacent parking lots to allow bicyclists, drivers, and pedestrians to cross property lines without returning to the street.

7. In newly developing areas, parking lots of adjacent properties should be interconnected.

8. Parking structures in commercial and mixed-use areas should include ground floor retail uses to create a pedestrian-supportive interface with the surrounding sidewalk. If a use cannot be provided, landscaping can be used as screening (see Figures 6.11 and 6.13).

B. Internal Pedestrian Circulation Pedestrian circulation within parking lots is crucial to creating lots that support walking conditions for both those arriving by car and those simply passing through.

Figure 6.13: A parking garage screened by landscaping

Considerations General Poorly designed parking lots can become barriers in a community if they expose pedestrians to vehicular traffic and fail to encourage careful driving.

Guidelines 1. Clearly delineated walkways, separated from traffic lanes, should be provided from parking areas to the entrances of establishments. Walkways running parallel to the parking rows should be provided for every four rows, and walkways running perpendicular to the parking rows should be no further than 20 parking stalls apart.

Figure 6.14: Defined pedestrian paths are incorporated into the site design of this business campus.

2. Walkways should provide a minimum clearance between car fenders of 5 feet. Concrete barriers should be used to prevent vehicle encroachment into the pedestrian walkway.

3. Where walkways cross traffic lanes, the walkway should be clearly delineated with contrasting color and pavement pattern, and be raised slightly to form a speed table.

4. Parking lots with over 150 parking spaces should have walkways designed with adjacent planting areas for trees and other landscaping; smaller parking lots should include this treatment whenever possible (refer to Section 6.2D, Parking Lot Landscaping).

5. Walkways should be raised to standard sidewalk height.

Figure 6.15: This defined pedestrian path through an office parking lot in Mountain View gives pedestrians a comfortaable space on which to traverse the expanse of asphalt.

Building Design and Site Development

6.07

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

C. Driveway Design Driveway entries to parking lots are commonly conflict points between vehicles and pedestrians. The overall number of driveways along a street can be limited through shared parking policies and site access controls. Refer to Section 2.4D, Site Access Controls for guidelines on spacing commercial driveways and Section 1.3A, Accessibility for accessibility guidance.

D. Parking Lot Landscaping Expansive parking lots are not only visually unappealing, but also gather reflective heat from cars and pavement, creating an uncomfortable pedestrian environment. Landscaping parking lots can effectively reduce the amount of reflective heat, keep parked cars cooler, and attractively delineate pedestrian walkways within the lot.

Considerations General Figure 6.16: Evenly spaced trees within a parking lot create a comfortable microclimate for cars and pedestrians.

Landscaping can be used within parking lots and along pedestrian pathways to visually and psychologically reduce the size of the lot and create a more pleasant pedestrian environment.

New Development vs. Retrofit Landscaping can often be added to existing parking lots, greatly improving the pedestrian environment without reducing the number of parking stalls.

Implementation and Relation to Current Standards and Practices Jurisdictions typically include landscaping requirements for parking lots in their zoning ordinances. A comprehensive example in Santa Clara County is the City of Sunnyvaleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Parking Lot Landscaping Guidelines (2002) which include shading and buffering requirements, a preferred tree list, and alternative planting methods, such as structural soils that are appropriate for parking lot conditions.

Maintenance Plant selection, irrigation design, litter collection, pruning and tree/plant replacement are necessary elements for a maintenance program for parking lots.

Figure 6.17: A tree planting plan for an â&#x20AC;&#x153;orchardstyleâ&#x20AC;? parking lot

6.08

Building Design and Site Development

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Guidelines 1. All lots with more than 24 stalls—approximately one-quarter acre—should provide a tree canopy that will cover 50% of the lot at the time of maturity, approximately ten years from planting. To achieve this coverage, trees should be planted orchard-style, evenly spaced throughout the parking lot (see Figures 6.16 and 6.17).

2

In parking lots with over 150 parking spaces—roughly one acre in area—landscaped areas with a minimum width of 5 feet should be located on both sides of at least 50% of pedestrian walkways within the parking lot. These walkways should be well distributed throughout the parking lot and provide direct access to the main entry points of the surrounding uses. In smaller parking lots, this standard should be met whenever possible.

Figure 6.18: Landscaping helps make the walking environment more pleasant, cools the parking lot, and reduces urban runoff.

3. Trees should be planted along the interior pedestrian paths to provide shade for pedestrians.

4. Each planted area should not be less than 25 square feet; drought-tolerant plants and water-efficient irrigation methods should be used to conserve water.

E. Screening Considerations General Parking lots abutting pedestrian-oriented streets should be effectively screened to reduce the perception of auto-dominance and reducing the reflective heat to passing pedestrians.

New Development vs. Retrofit Most existing parking lots can be retrofitted to achieve these guidelines without a reduction in parking spaces.

Figure 6.19: A planted trellis screens parking from the sidewalk

Guidelines 1. The landscaped buffer between a sidewalk and a parking lot should be at least 8 feet wide to provide space for trees, and to include a landscape screen of at least 42 inches in height to screen the grill and headlights of vehicles.

2. Where a parking lot faces a sidewalk, a landscaped buffer area no less than 2 feet wide should be provided, containing a hedge or other landscape screening device, such as a low wall with vines of at least 42 inches in height.

Figure 6.20: A simple low wall with landscaping can also screen parking from the sidewalk.

Building Design and Site Development

6.09

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

6.3

Public Open Spaces

Public open spaces such as plazas, parks, and small landscaped areas are vitally important pieces of the pedestrian environment.

They provide both visual interest to passers-by and public space where the community can gather, rest, and relax, becoming desirable walking destinations unto themselves.

Figure 6.21: Plazas and open space add interesting outdoor public gathering places to the city.

With some focused attention to design, public open spaces can elevate the quality of the pedestrian realm and the communityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s visual identity. Size is secondary to the quality of the space; small, well-designed spaces can play a large role in building community.

Design goals for public open spaces focus on making them visible, attractive, accessible and multi-generational.

Considerations General When designing a park or open space, consdider both its relationship to surrounding uses and whether it is formal or informal in character. It is generally preferable to design edges to be visually permeable from surrounding buildings and public streets.

Accessibility does not preclude parks or plazas from fronting directly onto a public or commercial building. In fact, this can create an active edge with cafes, displays, daycare facilities, or other interactive uses.

Figure 6.22: Parks and open spaces should be designed with a variety of pedestrian amenities such as seating and landscaping to encourage use.

Public open spaces can serve as a â&#x20AC;&#x153;front lawnâ&#x20AC;? to civic buildings that emphasizes the importance of the building and provides space for community gatherings.

Visibility affords users a sense of safety, and can make the space more attractive to occupy. Studies have shown that users prefer a sense of prospect/refuge; they tend to situate themselves against something and maximize their view outward.

The type and configuration of seating is a major determinant in the attractiveness of a park or plaza.

Implementation and Relation to Current Standards and Practices Some of the park activities recommended in these guidelines may not be included in existing park standards, which tend to focus mainly on active recreation and the amount of park space per capita.

6.10

Building Design and Site Development

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

The development of small parks and plazas, as suggested here, may not meet the minimum size criteria of existing city parks standards, which often limit parks to least 5 acres.

Relation to Transit Small parks and plazas should be considered as amenities for larger nearby transit facilities.

Relation to Context Ideal locations for small urban public spaces are in pedestrian accessible locations in neighborhoods, as opposed to near barriers such as freeways.

Guidelines 1. Parks can be discussed in three categories, each based on scale and program:

Figure 6.23: This neighborhood park in San Jose is situated directly adjacent to both apartments and ground-floor restaurants and cafes, providing activity that brings people to the park.

Greens and Plazas: less than half a city block or less than one-half acre; generally within mixed-use commercial districts, urban residential neighborhoods, major transit facilities and/or associated with civic uses; facilities include seating, performance areas, hardscaped areas, multipurpose lawns and tot lots for young children.

Neighborhood Parks: generally one half to one city block in size, or about one half to three acres; distributed throughout the community to allow most residents to be within a three- to four-block walk of a park; can be shared with schools; facilities include playgrounds, multipurpose lawns, small court game areas and seating.

Community Parks: generally larger than one city block or about 3 to 10 acres; serves a larger community; connected to the community by trail networks; facilities accommodate organized sports such as basketball, soccer, swimming and softball; playgrounds and formal picnic areas are also provided. Regional parks are larger than 10 acres and are not discussed here.

2. At least 70% of the park perimeter should be publicâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;accessible and visible from public streets, walkways, and surrounding ground-floor land uses.

3. Avoid fencing if feasible. At a minimum, a fence should not prohibit access during daylight hours, although fences may be installed around childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s play areas or active sports facilities for security and control. Fences should be visually permeable and buffered with landscaping.

Building Design and Site Development

6.11

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

4. Visibility into and through parks should be considered in the location, size, and design of parks.

5. Park paths should support direct connections from surrounding neighborhoods and commercial areas. These walkways should be wide enough to accomodate park users toting items such as strollers or picnic supplies. See Section 4.4, NonRoadway Connections, for guidance on walkways.

6. The internal paths should anticipate pedestrian desire lines that create shortcuts across the park.

7. Civic buildings should be accompanied by open spaces.

Figure 6.24: Even planted medians, such as this one in Mountain View, can be valuable urban open spaces if designed correctly.

8. Parks should respond to climatic conditions in the region by providing shaded areas for comfortable summer use and sunexposed areas for comfortable winter use. In some areas protection from seasonal high winds may be necessary (see Section 6.1, Designing For Climate).

9. Activity should be encouraged by allowing cafes to place tables along the park perimeter, installing permanent chessboards, integrating a small stage or amphitheater, and allowing vendor carts in the park space. In residential neighborhoods, homes should front onto the park rather than bordering the park with privacy fences.

10. Public washrooms should be provided if adequate maintenance and safety can be assured.

11. The amount of seating provided should consider the activity generated by uses in the park and the intensity of surrounding activities; too much empty seating makes a park seem unsafe.

12. Parks and plazas may see significant use by seniors and children. If high use levels from these populations are expected. streets in the vicinity should be treated similarly to school zones and senior centers.

13. Seating should be configured to allow users to choose the desired level of privacy and visibility, amount of sun and shade, proximity to activity, and to allow two people or a group to face each other for conversational purposes.

14. Lighting levels for walkways in parks should be maintained at a minimum of 0.3 fc.

6.12

Building Design and Site Development

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Appendix 1: Pedestrian Level of Service—Example of LOS Methodologies The following are models of Ped LOS adopted by some cities/authorities that have tried to address the evaluation of pedestrian and bicycle transportation modes using a quantitative method.

2001 –2002 Pedestrian Study, Vancouver, British Columbia Summary of Study This study was carried out to obtain updated information on pedestrian travel habits on commercial streets. The study counted pedestrian volumes at mid blocks and compared it to previous data to evaluate impact of the city’s previously adopted transportation and land use policies. The 2002 count covered more streets and was complemented with a opinion survey to help provide a better idea of how pedestrians are using sidewalks and where are the opportunities to improve services.

The Ped LOS used in Vancouver is measured as the peak hour pedestrian flow rate, in pedestrians per minute per meter.

It is intended to give an indication of the maximum pedestrian volume relative to the effective width of the sidewalk (width of side-walk that is clear of obstructions to pedestrians). To calculate the effective average width of the sidewalk, and additional 0.6m was deducted from the sidewalk width, to correct for the unusable space directly adjacent to buildings. The higher the number of the flow rate, the more congested the sidewalk is.

Ref: 2001-2002 Pedestrian Study. November 2002. City of Vancouver, BC. Average Flow LOS criteria for walkways and Sidewalks Flow Rate Speed LOS (ped/min/m) (m/s) A < or = 16.4 < or = 1.30 B 16.4 – 23.0 1.27 – 1.30 C 23.0 – 32.8 1.22 – 1.27 D 32.8 – 49.2 1.14 – 1.22 E 49.2 – 75.4 0.76 – 1.14 F Variable <0.76

Platoon adjusted LOS Criteria for Walkways and Sidewalks LOS

Flow rate (ped/min/m)

A B C D E F

< or = 1.64 1.64 – 9.84 9.84 – 19.67 19.67 – 36.07 36.07 – 59.02 >59.02

Evaluation & Comments The utility of this Ped LOS method is limited by the focus on pedestrian flow rate. While there is a point at which the pedestrian flow along a sidewalk could be too slow or congested, it would seem that this measure would result in a LOS A for sidewalks that have little or no pedestrian activity. For many people a certain amount of pedestrian activity is what makes an area vibrant and inviting. This measure would also seem to indicate that the only way to improve LOS is to widen a sidewalk or reduce the amount of ‘peak’ pedestrian activity on a sidewalk.

Still some form of this methodology may be useful for evaluating areas with high levels of pedestrian activity where an uncomfortable level of crowding may exist.

Appendix

A.01

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Florida Department of Transportation Summary of Study

The Florida State Department of Transport conducted a study to develop a methodology to accurately evaluate the quality of pedestrian facilities and sidewalks. The research aim was to develop a statistical model that can be applied to existing or planned pedestrian paths to evaluate the level of service. The method quantifies various elements regarding safety and security by incorporating relative dimensions and the presence of objects that increase or decrease the sense of safety and security (lateral distance for vehicular lane and sidewalk, green buffer, trees, on street parking, etc. between pedestrian and vehicular lanes, speed of vehicles on adjacent street etc.). The formula is fairly comprehensive however it cannot account for visual perceptions and other qualitative aspects like ambience, street character, vitality etc. The formula resulted from the statistical analysis of data collected from pedestrians walking a pre-determined course through various sidewalk and roadway conditions.

Model: Ped LOS =

-1.2021 In (Wol + Wl + fp* %OSP + fb*Wb + fsw*Ws)+ 0.253 In (Vol15/L) + 0.0005 SPD2 + 5.3876

Where:

Width of outside lane (feet) Width of shoulder or bike lane On-street parking effect coefficient (=0.20) Percent of segment with on-street parking Buffer area barrier coefficient (=5.37 for trees spaced 20 feet on center) Buffer width (distance between edge of pavement and sidewalk, feet) Sidewalk presence coefficient = 6 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 0.3Ws Width of sidewalk (feet) Average traffic during a fifteen (15) minute period Total number of (through) lanes (for road or street) Average running speed of motor vehicle traffic (m/hr)

Wol Wl fp %OSP fb Wb fsw Ws Vol15 L SPD

= = = = = = = = = = =

Level-of-Service A B C D E F

A.02

Appendix

Model Score >1.5 >2.5 >3.5 >4.5

< 1.5 and < and < and < and < >5.5

2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Evaluation & Comments

The model may be a good tool for establishing and assessing physical dimensions and quantifiable safety and security concerns of existing facilities and planned improvements. There are also some issues regarding the use of the formula as it is reported in the literature. For example â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;fbâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; the buffer area barrier coefficient is reported to be 5.37 for trees at 20 feet on center, but what if the street being analyzed has trees at 35 feet on center? Additionally, the formula needs to be supplemented with qualitative evaluations of the pedestrian realm to get a broader, more comprehensive measure of the performance of sidewalks. Still the formula and the articles describing it do provide a good listing of the factors that affect the quality of a pedestrian environment within the public r.o.w.

Ref: Modeling the Roadside Walking Environment: A Pedestrian Level of Service. SCI & FDOT, November 2000

Gainesville Mobility Plan Prototype, Gainesville FL Summary of Study

The Gainesville bicycle and pedestrian LOS performance measures evaluate roadway corridors using a point system of 1 to 21 that results in LOS ratings from A and F. Pedestrian LOS evaluation criteria involve provision of basic facilities, conflicts, amenities, motor vehicle LOS, maintenance, and TDM and multi-modal provisions. The pedestrian measures draw upon accepted facility designs, signal timing, and other features supported in research. The methodology is based on the premise that there is a critical mass of variables that must be present in a transportation corridor to attract non-motorized trips. The scoring system was developed with a sensitivity to characteristics that may be mutually exclusive or inclusive to determine all the possible combinations of points. Segments scores may appear somewhat exaggerated when compared to the LOS rating definitions, but they are moderated by applying weighted averages to achieve the corridor LOS rating. Segment scores identify the portions of a corridor having the greatest deficiencies.

Appendix

A.03

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

CATEGORY

CRITERION

PEDESTRIAN FACILITY PROVIDED (Max Value =10)

Not Continuous or Non-existent

0

Continuous on One Side

4

Continuous on Both Sides

6

Min. 1.53m (5’) Wide & Barrier Free

2

Sidewalk width>1.53m(5’)

1

Off-Street/Parallel Alternative Facility

1

Driveways & Side streets

1

CONFLICTS (Max Value = 4)

AMENITIES (Max Value = 2) MOTOR VEHICLES LOS (Max Value = 2) MAINTENANCE (Max Value = 1) TDM/MULTI-MODAL (Max Value = 1) CALCULATIONS

PTS.

Ped. Signal Delay 40 Sec. Or Less

0.5

Reduced Turn Conflict Implementation

0.5

Crossing Width 18.3m(60’) or Less

0.5

Posted Speed

0.5

Medians Present

1

Buffer Not Less Than 1m(3.5’)

1

Benches or Pedestrian Scale Lighting

0.5

Shade Trees

0.5

LOS = E, F, OR 6 or More Travel Lanes

0

Travel Lanes LOS = D and <6 Travel Lanes

1

LOS= A, B, C, and <6 Travel Lanes

2

Major or Frequent Problems

-1

Minor or Infrequent Problems

0

No Problems

2

No Support

0

Support Exists

1

Segment Score (Sum of all categories) Segment Weight (segment length/corridor length)

21 1

Adjusted Segment Score (segment score x segment weight)

21

Corridor Score (sum of the adjusted segment scores in the corridor)

21= LOS A

Level-of-Service A B C D E F

Model Score > 17 to 21 > 14 to 17 >11 to 14 >7 to 11 >3 to 7 <3 to 3

Ref: Dixon, Linda B. Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management System. Transportation Research Record 1538. 1996

A.04

Appendix

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Evaluation & Comments

The Gainesville Model is a more comprehensive Ped LOS compared to Vancouver and fairly easy to understand and adjust for local characteristics. It incorporates some qualitative measures such as maintenance and amenities without being as rigid as the FDOT formula based Ped LOS evaluation. However it does not address the complexities of some issues such as motor vehicle LOS were lower traffic LOSâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s are given a higher score. But a road segment with a low LOS may have traffic with higher speeds or less signal crossings, which are detrimental to pedestrian safety.

Pedestrian Level of Service Based on Trip Quality, Winter Park, FL The study incorporates various qualitative factors that are not generally addressed in customary level-of-service analyses. Nine specific evaluation measures were utilized to evaluate the pedestrian environment in Winter Park, Florida.

The measures are based upon aesthetics, safety and ease of movement. The are as follows: Enclosure/Definition: The principle of enclosure measures the degree to which the edges of the street are defined. Good enclosure dictates the pedestrianâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s eyes are focused along the street rather than among the blank spaces between, behind, or in front of buildings.

Complexity of Path Network: A complete/complex path network furnishes pedestrians with numerous route choices between origins and destinations. A complex path network creates a high degree of connectivity between destinations giving the pedestrians different options and variance of atmosphere to experience while commuting.

Building Articulation: Storefronts and houses add interest to the pedestrian experience through the varied application of materials, design, color and dĂŠcor. Historic streets and town centers with articulated facades often have larger volumes of foot traffic as they were designed for the slower moving traffic.

Complexity of Spaces: Frequent variations in the orientation and character of public spaces add to the general level of interest of commercial districts and residential neighborhoods. Spaces such as courtyards, plazas, parks, playgrounds complemented with natural elements like water and trees help create a favorable pedestrian environment.

Overhangs/Awnings/Varied Roof Lines: The placement of these elements contributes to the scale at the street level and help in aesthetics and functionality by providing shelter from the elements.

Buffer: A buffer between sidewalks and vehicular traffic contributes greatly to the perception of safety for the pedestrian. The perceived safety add to the level of comfort for the pedestrian.

Shade Trees: The presence of shade trees contributes to the comfort level of pedestrians by keeping the sidewalk cool and blocking sunlight. Trees also help in definition of the street and add to the perceived level of safety.

Transparency: Transparency addresses the transition between the public space and private space. In business areas, transparency is created through the use of windows, outdoor displays, and sidewalk cafes. In residential areas, front porches facilitate a smooth interface between the public street and private house.

Physical Components/Condition: This category of evaluation addresses the specific physical qualities of the sidewalk and its surroundings that are not explicitly covered by any of the other eight evaluation measures.

Appendix

A.05

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

The physical elements evaluated are Sidewalk Configuration and Condition; Vehicular Speed in terms of Roadway design speed, incorporating all physical attributes of the design and state of the roadway (lane widths, pedestrian crossings, sight lines, on-street parking etc); and Lighting Each of the evaluation categories are graded on the scale of 1 to 5 where 5=excellent; 4= good; 3= average; 2= poor; 1= very poor. The scores can be presented individually to identify particular deficiencies of a study corridor or can be aggregated on a LOS scale to provide an overall measure. The Ped LOS scale is as follows: LOS A LOS B LOS C LOS D LOS E LOS F

= = = = = =

4.0 to 5.0 3.4 to 3.9 2.8 to 3.3 2.2 to 2.7 1.6 to 2.1 1.0 to 1.5

= very pleasant = comfortable = acceptable = uncomfortable = unpleasant = very unpleasant

Ref. Jaskiewicz, Frank. Pedestrian Level of Service Based on Trip Quality. Presented at Urban Streets Symposium, Dallas TX 1999. Sponsored by the Transportation Research Board Evaluation & Comments The qualitative categories defined in this model develop a more desirable measure of the pedestrian environment and can highlight specific issues for a particular corridor. It has the flexibility to present all categories together in a matrix or aggregate it as a LOS measure. However, the study report does not elaborate on a methodology of maintaining a consistency of gradation amongst different surveyors. This is particularly important, as most of the categories are susceptible to individual perceptions. Therefore, before conducting such a study there has to be a control mechanism in place that makes sure all the evaluations are done in a consistent fashion.

Examples of Other Pedestrian Environment Measures LUTRAQ – PEF: the ‘Pedestrian Environmental Factor’ An alternative to the Ped LOS methodologies discussed above is the PEF as developed during the Making the Land Use Transportation Air Quality Connection (LUTRAQ) Study in Portland, Oregon. Metro Regional Services and the consultant team determined a methodology for evaluating the pedestrian-friendliness of areas considering the transportation system, land use, and other environmental factors. Two documents prepared for the LUTRAQ Study describe the PEF —“The Pedestrian Environment: Volume 4A”and “The Pedestrian Neighborhood: A Supplement to The Pedestrian Environment, Volume 4C”. The first document’s focus is how “travel behavior is affected by neighborhood land use patterns”. The Study singles out four variables to measure the walkability of an area: The quality of the pedestrian environment Residential density; Transit level of service; and, Proximity to employment activity.

A.06

Appendix

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

This report further explores the first variable, the quality of the pedestrian environment. It applies four parameters to the measure of this quality, assigning a points rating to each. The points are collected and used to rate areas for pedestrian friendliness. This measure is called the “Pedestrian Environmental Factor” (PEF). The four parameters for measurement are the following, with each of the categories scoring a possible three points, for a maximum PEF score of 12: 1. Ease of Street Crossings Width of Streets Extent of Signalization Traffic Volumes 2. Sidewalk Continuity Extent of Sidewalks on Arterials Extent of Sidewalks on Neighborhood Collectors 3. Local Street Characteristics (Grid vs. Cul-de-sac) Extent of Grid Street Patterns Fineness of Grid (distance between intersections) 4. Topography Sloping Terrain Steepness of Slopes In addition to the above parameters used in the study, a few others were utilized in the second document to measure pedestrian-friendliness. Two sample Portland neighborhoods were chosen to represent two distinctly different neighborhood types, and lie on opposite ends of the Pedestrian Environment Factor (PEF) scale. The analysis included the factors: Local Destinations within Walking Distance; Pedestrian-Friendly Design; Street –facing Buildings and Rear-Parking; and, Transit Stops that are Accessible by Foot

The report identifies that convenience is an important part of encouraging walking, and is defined by a pleasant, safe, interconnected street system. The document states that fine-grained interconnected street systems allow pedestrians flexibility in terms of choosing the shortest distance to a destination.

Furthermore, the report concludes that transit is not economically viable without “healthy pedestrian environments.” Their research shows that regions that have relied exclusively on Park and Ride instead of walkable neighborhoods have seen lower transit ridership levels. “Thus, a viable transit system depends, in part, on placing mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented nodes at strategic points along the regional transit framework.”

Ref. The Pedestrian Environment: Volume 4A and The Pedestrian Neighborhood: A Supplement to The Pedestrian Environment, Volume 4C, LUTRAQ. 1000 Friends of Oregon.

Appendix

A.07

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Evaluation & Comment The LUTRAQ investigations of the elements that make a neighborhood pedestrian-friendly and the use of the PEF in measuring comparative pedestrian-friendliness in the Portland Metro Region complements the Ped LOS methodologies measure the pedestrian-friendliness of specific roadway networks. The PEF methodology includes a broader set of factors, such as land use and street patterns and intensities, while the Ped LOS factors focus mainly on factors related to the design and use of the roadway. The PEF benefits from the ‘transparency’ of the methodology and the fact that it is interactive. A group of people must work together, experience the physical environment, and agree on PEF scores for the neighborhoods and districts in their communities.

Pedestrian Master Plan, Oakland CA – Space-Syntax.

Summary of Study The Oakland Master Pedestrian Master Plan suggests and two alternative methods to evaluate pedestrian services. The first is evaluating the city streets with a Ped LOS model and the second alternative suggested is a suite of modeling tools called Space-Syntax. Space-Syntax uses the layout and connectivity of urban street grids to generate “movement potentials” which it compares to sampled pedestrian counts at key locations and land-use indicators such as population density. The resulting correlations are used to predict pedestrian volumes on a street-by-street level for the entire city.

Space-syntax was created at the University College of London in the mid-1980s and is widely used through Europe and Asia. The consultants used the suite to model future pedestrian traffic volumes on the streets of Oakland and identify potentially dangerous intersections.

Ref: Pedestrian Master Plan, The City of Oakland, CA. November 2002 Evaluation & Comments Space-Syntax is different approach to the traditional LOS based evaluation system. It looks at the tendency of pedestrians to utilize the most convenient route, and by incorporating population, land use and transportation data, can predict which routes of a network will be used the most. This helps categorize pedestrian routes by volume and therefore predict possible conflict points and provide the client with a priority of pedestrian paths that need to be looked at for improvements. This system does not indicate particular issues (ambience, lighting, safety, etc). These can be evaluated by a suitable Ped LOS methodology, after the tool identifies the path with high pedestrian traffic. It is a useful tool for forecasting new pedestrian flows resulting from changes in land use or new development, therefore helping develop better pedestrian corridors.

A.08

Appendix

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Appendix 2: Glossary Accessible Pedestrian Signal - A device that communicates information about pedestrian timing in a non-visual format including audible tones, verbal messages and/or vibrotactile information.

Accessway – a formalized path, walkway, or other physical connection that allows pedestrians to efficiently reach destinations.

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) - Federal law prohibiting discrimination against people with disabilities.

Requires public entities and public accommodations to provide accessible accommodations for people with disabilities.

Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG) - provides scoping and technical specifications for new construction and alterations undertaken by entities covered by the ADA. Animated Eye Indication - Pedestrian indications as part of a traffic signal which display a pair of moving eyes to remind the pedestrian to look for turning vehicles.

Arcade – a covered walkway attached to a building and supported on the sides not attached to the building by columns.

Arterial - major through route.

Articulation – the visible expression of architectural or landscape elements through form, structure, or materials that “break up” the scale of buildings and spaces to achieve a “human scale.”

Audible Warning - See Accessible Pedestrian Signal.

Average Daily Traffic (ADT) – The total bi-directional volume of traffic passing through a given point during a given time period, divided by the number of days in that time period.

Berm – an artificial bank of earth. Berms can physically and visually separate areas and provide visual and physical level changes by raising landscape elements above grade.

Build-to Line – a given distance from a property line where the façade of the building within that property must be located.

Capacity – The maximum number of vehicles that have a reasonable expectation of passing over a given section of roadway during a given time period.

Channelization – The separation or regulation of conflicting traffic movements into definite paths of conflicting traffic movements into definite pats of travel by use of pavement markings, raised islands, or other suitable means.

Chicanes – Curb extensions that alternate from one side of the street to the other, forming S-shaped curves.

Collector Street - A roadway linking traffic on local roads to the arterial road network.

Compact Development – the planning concept of using site design and urban design techniques to decrease the amount of land needed to develop a given amount of land use. In the case of TOD, this is done with the goal of improving transit access.

Count-down Pedestrian Signals – Pedestrian indications as part of a traffic signal which indicate the time remaining for the flashing “Don’t Walk” interval.

Crosswalk - The portion of a roadway where pedestrians are permitted to cross the street; may be marked or unmarked.

Curb Ramp - A combined ramp and landing to accomplish a change in level at a curb. This element provides street and sidewalk access to pedestrians using wheelchairs, scooters, strollers, walkers, etc.

Curb Extension – A section of sidewalk at an intersection or mid-block crossing that reduces the width that pedestrians have to travel, which also helps reduce vehicular traffic speeds (see also: Pedestrian Bulbouts).

Cycle Time – The time, in seconds, required for one complete sequence of signal indications for all movements at an intersection with a traffic signal.

Delay – The stopped time per vehicle, pedestrian or bicyclist, in seconds per vehicle.

Density – a unit of measurement that divides persons, floor area, or dwelling units per the gross or net measurement of a discreet

Appendix

A.09

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

area e.g., acres, square feet, square miles. Density requirements in this document are expressed as gross densities with the land area including the area of the parcel, specific to the use including its yard and any parking provided, plus the area of one-half of the street right-of-way upon which the parcel fronts.

Diverters – The use of physical measures to divert traffic away from a specific street or roadway.

Drive-Through Facility – facilities allowing transactions for goods or services without leaving a motor vehicle.

Floor Area Ratio (FAR) – the amount of enclosed gross floor area in relation to the amount of site area. For example, a floor area ratio of 0.5 is equal to one square foot of floor area for every two square feet of site area.

Footcandle - A unit of measure of the intensity of light falling on a surface, equal to one lumen per square foot and originally defined with reference to a standardized candle burning at one foot from a given surface.

Frontage – the linear edge of a property adjacent to the property line abutting a street, public right-of-way.

Grade-Separated Crossing - A facility such as overpass, underpass, skywalk or tunnel that allows pedestrians and motor vehicles to cross each other at different levels.

Gradient – the change in density, height, and/or land use occurring in stages, degrees, or even and continuous change.

Greenway – a singular or a series of vegetative, linear corridors, natural or man-made, which may contain active or passive recreational uses or which may prohibit human activity altogether in order to preserve sensitive areas. These are usually associated with riparian systems, but may also include transportation corridors.

Human Scale – the size and proportion of a physical element that closely relates to the human body e.g., a 16 foot lamp post vs. a 30 foot lamp post, and a façade with vertically oriented framed windows vs. a façade with a continuous and unarticulated window wall.

In-pavement Crosswalk Lights - A device consisting of multiple lights embedded in a roadway that become illuminated and flash when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk. The lights may be pedestrian-actuated by push-button, or may be configured to flash automatically using infrared or motion detectors. The flashing lights are visible during both daytime and nighttime conditions. The lights continue to flash for a determined length of time which is adequate for pedestrians to cross the entire street width.

Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) - Federal legislation authorizing highway, highway safety, transit, and other surface transportation programs from 1991 through 1997. It provided new funding opportunities for sidewalks, shared use paths, and recreational trails. ISTEA is now superseded by the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century.

Landing - A level area of sidewalk at the top, bottom or mid-point of a ramp.

Light Rail Transit (LRT) – a fixed guideway transit system that can operate on a variety of rights-of-way ranging from on-street to grade separated.

Live-Work – a residential unit that is also used for commercial purposes for a time, with minimum of 50% of the total building area given to the commercial use within the same structure as the residential component.

Local Road - A road that serves individual residences or businesses, and/or distributes traffic within a given urban or rural area.

Local Access Road - Also known as Side Access lanes - traffic lanes within a multiway boulevard street configuration that are separated from thru-lanes by a median; lanes are slower providing local access and may provide on-street parking.

Lot Coverage – Areas of a lot or parcel covered by buildings (as defined by foundation perimeters) and other structures with surfaces greater than 36 inches above the finished and natural grade.

Major Pedestrian Route – the primary route or space used by “Pedestrians” as defined in this section.

Median - An island in the center (or side in case of a multiway boulevard configuration) of a road that can provide pedestrians with a place of refuge and reduce the crossing distance of the road. See also Pedestrian Refuge Island.

Midblock Crossing – A crossing point positioned between intersections rather than at an intersection.

Minimum Clearance Width - The narrowest point on a sidewalk or trail. Created when obstacles such as landscaping, utility

A.10

Appendix

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

poles, street furnishings that protrude into the sidewalk are removed or relocated.

Mixed-Use – Development contained within a single-parcel (horizontally or vertically) or adjacent parcels that contains different uses that are complementary to each other and provide activity throughout the day.

Open Space – a private or public open land area that is currently undeveloped; it may be maintained as open space into the future or it could be developed.

Parking Structure – a parking garage located above ground or underground consisting of one or more levels, not surface parking.

Park-and-Ride Lot – A parking structure or surface parking lot intended primarily for use by persons riding transit or carpooling, and that is owned or operated either by a transit agency or by another entity with the concurrence of the transit agency.

Parking, Off-Street – formal or informal parking located within a parcel and outside a private or public right-of-way.

Parking, On-Street – formal or informal parking located within a private or public right-of-way and outside of a parcel.

Passive Pedestrian Detection – Devices which monitor the presence of pedestrians in order to activate a desired operation of a traffic signal or electronic warning device.

Pedestrian –a pedestrian means people who walk, sit, stand, or use a wheelchair in public spaces, be they children, teens, adults, elderly, people with disabilities, workers, residents, shoppers or people watchers, etc.

Pedestrian Activity – the congregation of persons in an area whose primary means of transportation is by foot.

Pedestrian Actuated Traffic Control - Pushbutton or other control operated by pedestrians designed to interrupt the prevailing signal cycle to permit pedestrians to cross a signalized intersection or midblock crossing.

Pedestrian Bulbout - A section of sidewalk extending into the roadway at an intersection or mid-block crossing, generally the width of the parking lane, that reduces the crossing width for pedestrians and help reduce traffic speeds.

Pedestrian Corral – A gated or fenced in median island, usually as part of a staggered crosswalk, which allows only specific access points into the median.

Pedestrian-oriented Design – The design of communities, neighborhoods, streetscapes, sites, and buildings that emphasizes pedestrian access, comfort, and visual interest. Transit-Oriented Design is a particular type of Pedestrian-oriented Design that includes design and intensity of land use to support transit in addition to pedestrians.

Pedestrian Realm - Space that is designed for, and occupied by, pedestrians.

Pedestrian Refuge Island - An island in a central median within a right-of-way where a pedestrian who is unable to make the crossing at one time can safely pause.

Pedestrian Way – a linear space or an area where the primary users are pedestrians and that may also accommodate bicyclists.

Pergola – an arbor or passageway with a roof or trelliswork on which climbing plants can be trained to grow.

Portico – a porch or walkway with a roof supported by columns, often leading to the entrance of a building.

Porch – an open or enclosed gallery or room attached to the outside of a building, typically serving as a semi-public space prior to a building entry.

Primary Front Façade – the façade of a building that is meant to take importance over the remaining façades of a building, typically fronting onto a public or private street or pedestrian accessway.

Residential Street – A roadway with fronting residential homes.

Roundabouts – Circular intersections that are used to slow traffic, maintain adequate capacity and provide for safer pedestrian crossings at intersections.

Rural - Areas outside the boundaries of urban areas.

Setback – the distance between the building façade and the property line of the parcel in which the building is located.

Shared Parking – parking that is utilized by two or more uses taking into account the variable peak demand times of each use; the uses can be located on more than one parcel.

Appendix

A.11

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Sidewalk - A paved pathway paralleling a roadway intended only for pedestrians.

Speed Tables – Sections of a roadway or intersection which are raised, usually to the height of the adjacent curb, to slow vehicular traffic.

Staggered Crosswalk – A marked crosswalk which is divided by a median island. The two legs of the crosswalk are offset so that a pedestrian must turn within the median island so that they face oncoming traffic before completing the crossing maneuver.

Street-Facing – the façade of a building that is adjacent to a public or private right-of-way.

Suburban - Area outlying a city that is developed as a community.

Swale - A natural or human-made open depression or wide shallow ditch that intermittently contains or conveys stormwater runoff.

Tactile Warning - Change in surface condition providing a tactile cue to alert visually impaired pedestrians of a potentially hazardous situation.

Traffic Calming – The combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of more vehicle uses, alter driver behavior and improve conditions for non-motorized street users.

Traffic Calming Circle – A raised island, placed in an intersection, around which traffic circulates. Traffic circles are generally used in residential areas where traffic calming is the desired effect rather than capacity.

Traffic Markings – All lines, words, or symbols, except signs, officially placed within the roadway to regulate, warn or guide traffic.

Traffic Sign - A device mounted on a fixed or mountable support to convey a message or symbol to regulate, warn, or guide traffic.

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) – a development pattern characterized by a mix of uses surrounding a transit platform where streets have a high level of connectivity, blocks are small, and streetscape, buildings, and uses cater to the pedestrian.

Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) - Federal legislation authorizing highway, highway safety, transit, and other surface transportation programs from 1998 through 2003. It provided funding opportunities for pedestrian, bicycling, and public transit facilities, and emphasizes intermodalism, multimodalism, and community participation in transportation planning initiated by ISTEA. Trellis – a light framework of horizontal and vertical members that can be freestanding or attached to a building often supporting climbing plants.

Truncated Domes - Small domes with flattened tops used as tactile warnings at transit platforms and curb edges.

Uniform Federal Accessibility Standards - Accessibility standards that all Federal agencies are required to meet.

Urban - Places within boundaries set by State and local officials, having a population of 5,000 or more. Urban areas are characterized by dense population and a density of built structures.

U.S. Access Board (United States Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board) - Federal agency responsible for developing Federal accessibility guidelines under the ADA and other laws.

Visual Permeability – the ability of vertical surfaces to allow viewers to see through to the other side e.g., windows and open fencing (see also “Transparent”).

Volume – The number of vehicles, pedestrians, or bicyclists passing a given point during a specified period.

Walk Interval - A traffic signal phase in which the WALK signal indication is displayed.

Walking Radius – the distance beyond a central point from which a person is willing to walk. This distance will vary depending on existing barriers, the walking environment, and the availability of destinations.

Warrants - Information intended to provide guidance to transportation professionals when evaluating the safety and operational benefits of installing improvements.

Woonerf - also known as a “Slow Street” - a local residential street designed for common use by both pedestrians and vehicles - each have equal status. Generally there are no curbs, and plantings and street furniture are placed so as to discourage and inhibit through traffic movements.

A.12

Appendix

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Appendix 3: Sources This source list is intended to provide an overview of the most recent and most relevant sources (primarily guideline precedents) pertaining to the subject of pedestrian-oriented design guidelines. It is not intended to provide an exhaustive review of the literature; rather a relatively focused effort to identify research that may have relevance to the guidelines.

Research Wigan, Marcus. “Treatment of Walking as a Mode of Transportation.” Transportation Research Record 1487. Cambridge Systematics, Victoria, Australia, 1989.

Federal Highway Administration. “Reasons Why Bicycling and Walking are and are not Being Used More Extensively as Travel Modes.” National Bicycling and Walking Study; FHWA. Case Study No.1. FHWA., 1993.

Federal Highway Administration. “Measures to Overcome Impediments to Bicycling and Walking.” National Bicycling and Walking Study; FHWA. Case Study No.4. FHWA., 1993.

Federal Highway Administration. “The Environmental Benefits of Bicycling and Walking.” National Bicycling and Walking Study; FHWA. Case Study No.15. FHWA., 1993.

Federal Highway Administration. “The Effects of Environmental Design on the Amount and Type of Bicycling and Walking.”

National Bicycling and Walking Study; FHWA. Case Study No.20. FHWA., 1993.

Khisty, Jotin, C. “Evaluation of Pedestrian Facilities: Beyond the Level-of-Service Concept.” Transportation Research Record 1438.

Date unknown.

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC). Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Toolbox. MTC. 2002.

Example Pedestrian Design Guidelines Documents City of Oakland. Pedestrian Master Plan. Oakland Pedestrian Safety Project, Oakland, CA, November, 2002.

City of Portland Office of Transportation Engineering and Development Pedestrian Transportation Program. Portland Pedestrian Master Plan. Portland Office of Transportation, Portland, OR, 1998.

City of Portland Office of Transportation Engineering and Development Pedestrian Transportation Program. Portland Pedestrian Design Guide. Portland Office of Transportation, Portland, OR, 1998.

City of Portland Office of Transportation Engineering and Development Pedestrian Transportation Program. Planning and Design for Transit Handbook - Guidelines for Implementing Transit Supportive Development. Portland Office of Transportation, Portland, OR, 1998.

Florida Department of Transportation. Florida Pedestrian Planning and Design Handbook. University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center, Chapel Hill, NC, April, 1999.

New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT). Pedestrian Compatible: Planning and Design Guidelines. New Jersey Department of Transportation, 1999.

Valley Metro Regional Public Transportation Authority. Pedestrian-Oriented Design (PeD) Standards and Design Guidelines.

Community Design + Architecture, Oakland, CA, 2001.

Washington State Department of Transportation (et al.). Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook; Incorporating Pedestrian into Washington’s Transportation System. OTAK, Seattle, WA, 1997.

Appendix

A.13

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Transportation Engineering-Related Sources American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities (DRAFT). AASHTO, August, 2001.

Americans with Disabilities Act Accessibility Guidelines (ADAAG). Issued by the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board, Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations and incorporated in the final Department of Justice Title III regulation.

Boodlal, Leverson. A Walkable Community is much more than just sidewalks…Your Town USA.. (pamphlet). U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Division publication No. FHWA-SA-00-010, 2001.

California Department of Transportation. Highway Design Manual.

United States Department of Justice. ADA Standards for Accessible Design available at URL: http://www.usdoj.gov/ada/adastd94.pdf Ewing, Reid. Traffic Calming: State of the Practice. Prepared for the Federal Highway Administration and Institute of Transportation Engineers, 1999.

Federal Highway Administration. Flexibility in Highway Design. Publication Number: FHWA-PD-97-062. 1998 Federal Highway Administration. Roundabouts: An Informational Guide. Publication Number – FHWA-RD-00-067. 2000.

Federal Transit Administration, Livable Communities Program. Improving Pedestrian Access to Transit. Available at URL: http//safety.fhwa.dot.gov/forthlevel/pdf/fta.pdf Federal Highway Administration. Pedestrian Facilities User Guide – Providing Safety and Mobility. March 2002.

Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Course on Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation. FHWA. 2002.

Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. American National Standard Practice for Roadway Lighting. Publication # RP-8-00. IESNA . 2000 Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities. December, 1994.

Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Traditional Neighborhood Development Street Design Guidelines. 1999.

Lalani, Nazir. Alternative Treatments for At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings. Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2001.

Transit Cooperative Research Program. Vehicular and Pedestrian Safety. Bulletin #34. Sponsored by Federal Transit Administration July 1999.

Local Concerns Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Light Rail Transit Design Criteria Manual. VTA (no date).

Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Community Design and Transportation (CDT) – A Manual of Best Practices for Integrating Transportation and Land Use (Draft). VTA, March, 2002.

Valley Transportation Authority (VTA). Bicycle Technical Guidelines – A Guide for Local Agencies in Santa Clara County. VTA. September, 1999.

City of Sunnyvale. City of Sunnyvale’s Parking Lot Landscaping Guidelines. Available via the web at www.ci.sunnyvale.ca.us/200204/rtcs/02-145a01.html.

The Redevelopment Agency of San Jose. Downtown San Jose Streetscape Master Plan (Draft). San Jose Recevelolpment Agency.

July, 2002.

Santa Clara County Interjurisdictional Trails Committee. Uniform Interjurisdictional Trail Design, Use, and Management Guidelines. Santa Clara County. April, 1999.

East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD). Water-Conserving Plant and Landscapes for the Bay Area. 1990.

A.14

Appendix

VTA Pedestrian Technical Guidelines

Appendix 4: Acknowledgements VTA Staff Chester Fung, Project Manager Chris Augenstein, Principal Transportation Planner Celia Chung, Senior Transportation Planner

Guidelines Working Group Member Agency Staff Dieckmann Cogill, City of Sunnyvale Gayle Likens, City of Palo Alto Manuel Pineda, City of San Jose Local Pedestrian Advocacy John Sullivan, City of Santa Clara David Simons, City of Sunnyvale Marc Jensen, City of Los Gatos

Consultant Staff Community Design + Architecture Phil Erickson, President Clark Wilson, Senior Associate

Peer Review Reid Ewing, National Center for Smart Growth, University of Maryland.

Jill Escher, Walk San Jose

VTA Member Agencies City of Campbell City of Cupertino City of Gilroy City of Los Altos Town of Los Altos Hills Town of Los Gatos City of Milpitas City of Monte Sereno City of Morgan Hill City of Mountain View City of Palo Alto City of San Jose City of Santa Clara City of Saratoga City of Sunnyvale Santa Clara County

Appendix

A.15