HEALTHY HEALTHY IINDIANAPOLIS NDIANAPOLIS
Open Space and Street Interventions
Prepared by: Eric Lucas Prepared for: LA 590 and LA 690, Jody Rosenblatt-Naderi and Martha Hunt Date of Submission: June 15, 2012
Table of Contents
Preface ..................................................................... iii
Appendix .................................................................37 Walkable Urban Thoroughfares ................................. 37
Introduction ...............................................................1
Road Diets ................................................................. 40
Top 10 By 2025 ........................................................... 2
European Pedestrian Bicycle Safety and Mobility Practices ........................................................................... 40
Open Space Interventions .........................................7
Pedestrian Safety .................................................... 41
Comparisons ............................................................... 7 Neighborhood Greening ............................................. 12 Case Study: Denver Learning Landscapes ................. 14 Cases Study: St. Petersburg Play ‘n’ Close to Home . 16 Case Study: Miami Grand Central Park ...................... 16 Conclusions ............................................................... 17
Bicyclist Safety ....................................................... 41 Low-Speed Street Design ...................................... 42 Walking/Bicycling/Transit Considerations ............... 42 Multi-Modal Education ........................................... 43 Enforcement .......................................................... 43 Encouragement ..................................................... 43
Next Steps ................................................................. 18
Street Interventions .................................................19 Complete Streets ....................................................... 19 Home Zones .............................................................. 22 Open Streets ............................................................. 23 Play Streets ............................................................... 26 Neighborhood Revitalization Initiatives ........................ 28 Build a Better Block ................................................ 28 Pop-Up Retail ......................................................... 30 Conclusions ............................................................... 31 Next Steps ................................................................. 31
References ..............................................................33
i
ii
Preface
At one time, Indianapolis was home to more miles of street car
of central or college ave). As a result, neighborhood connectiv-
tracks than any other city in the United States. (include streetcar
ity, so important in promoting increased levels of physical activ-
map). Unfortunately, over the past 90+ years, this vast network
ity, has fundamentally been altered.
has disappeared altogether and given way to automobile-focused investment; the consequences of which are well-known.
The way in which we eat has also undergone a profound shift
The automobile has afforded extended commutes to sprawling,
since the early 1900’s. With the rise of a vast transportation
suburban, bedroom communities which tend to segregate land
system, local sources of food have given way to international
uses and further our reliance on automobiles for just about ev-
sources of food. With greater global access, supermarkets are
ery daily task outside the home. Massive roadway infrastructure
able to satisfy our new dietary demands of all types of fruits and
built to support this migration is falling deeply into disrepair or
vegetables throughout all seasons. As the international trade
its level of service is now inadequate and resources to further
has flourished, family farms that previously supplied fresh, lo-
invest in these systems are now, and for the foreseeable future,
cal food to community and regional markets and grocers have
scarce. Further, international crises in Greece, Iran, and other
disappeared. In their place, large-scale, industrialized, com-
far-away places affect oil markets, and thusly the price of a gal-
modity-crop farms have gobbled up the majority of farmland to
lon of gasoline for most Americans who rely heavily on auto-
grow primarily corn and soybeans not intended for consump-
mobiles. One wonders for how much longer we can afford to
tion. Sadly, ninety-percent, roughly equivalent to $14.5 billion,
invest taxpayer dollars in such an unsustainable system?
of food consumed in this agriculturally-proud state is imported (Meter, 2012).
The consequential legacy that suburban growth left our innercity neighborhoods is auto-centric transportation system de-
With suburban flight, grocery stores vacated inner-city areas,
signed to move cars from downtown employment centers to
never to fully return. In our urban neighborhoods, food sources
outlying residential communities as quickly and efficiently as
include convenience stores, gas stations, discount stores, and
possible. In doing so, once-dominant streetcar systems that
fast food establishments. A lack of access to fresh, affordable
promoted density, mixed uses, and walking have been replaced
food persists in many vulnerable communities, diminishing the
with auto-centric road systems that promote more travel lanes,
ability to choose a healthy diet of fruits and vegetables. Food
coordinated traffic signals, higher travel speeds, one-way street
pantries and corporate leaders have stepped up efforts to ad-
networks, and in some cases overhead interstate systems. This
dress the issue, but the initiatives are small in scale and not
shift from multi-modal planning to auto-centric planning has torn
likely sustainable over time.
at our urban fabric, compromised pedestrian safety, and stifled business viability along once-bustling corridors (historic photos
The scale of built-environment, fundamental infrastructure iii
change necessary to truly address nutrition and physical activity issues in our most vulnerable communities is vast. This is a task of undoing decades’ of policy supporting, among other things, (1) automobiles as the primary mode of transportation and, (2) global sources and over-processed, cheap foods. And though the cost is signiďŹ cant to implement new walks, trails, parks, and food systems to improve health in at-risk communities, one must consider the alternative cost of not doing so.
iv
v
vi
Introduction
The link between our health and our physical environment is
make Indianapolis one of the country’s top ten healthiest places
well-documented. Communities that comprised of mixed uses,
to live by the year 2025. For a city currently ranked 43rd, it
higher density, well-connected street grids and well-designed
is an ambitious undertaking that will require a broad, yet tar-
streets, sidewalks, street trees, jobs, stores, schools, parks,
geted approach spanning public and private realms. An un-
and transit can lead to increased physical activity for residents
precedented, coordinated collaboration between professionals
(Ewing, Meakings, Bjarnson, & Hilton, 2011). The American
who impact wellness, from the healthcare industry to the design
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP wrote in 2009: “The physical layout
industry, will be critical to connect medical research to physical
of communities can promote or limit opportunities for physical
environment solutions. The initiative is on the scale of previous
activity. There is growing research and policy interest in active
City goal – purposing and succeeding in becoming the Sports
living. Under this principle, by establishing communities that
Capital of the World – one that is ambitious but achievable with
support an active lifestyle, neighborhood design can promote
determination and leadership.
physical activity patterns that are sustainable and important to health” (American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Envi-
Working towards this goal will undoubtedly positively affect the
ronmental Health, 2009). They also note that “environments that
lives of thousands of Indianapolis residents in urban neighbor-
promote more active lifestyles among children and adolescents
hoods. A myriad of urban design and planning strategies could
will be important to enable them to achieve recommended levels
be considered to increase physical activity. Some are vast in
of physical activity” (American Academy of Pediatrics, Commit-
scale, others modest; some require considerable capital invest-
tee on Environmental Health, 2009). In noting that low income
ment, while others cost virtually nothing at all. Simple and di-
neighborhoods (which typically reflect disparities for
obesity,
rect strategies, such as providing more walkways and bikeways
overweight, and chronic disease such as diabetes and heart
either on their own or as part of a campaign like Safe Routes
disease, particularly among African Americans and Hispanics/
to Schools, are well-understood and are actively being consid-
Latino populations) tend to lack adequate access to opportuni-
ered and implemented with projects throughout Indianapolis. In
ties that support an active lifestyle, the AAP recommends that
fact, the City has set a goal to create 200 miles of bikeways in
governments prioritize improvements in these neighborhoods.
twelve years (City of Indianapolis). More intensive strategies like building additional parks and implementing the goals of Com-
Recognizing that Indianapolis must do more to improve the
plete Streets are also well-understood but can be more difficult
health of its residents, Mayor Ballard and others in the India-
and more costly to implement, though the local organization
napolis community announced the Top 10 By 2025 Initiative
Keep Indianapolis Beautiful is taking a modest and incremen-
in May 2012 (YMCA, 2012). This initiative, led by YMCA of
tal approach to greening vacant lots throughout the City (Keep
Greater Indianapolis and other community partners aims to
Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc.). Complex and indirect strategies, 1
like implementing a regional transit system, are long-term goals
stronger, healthier, and more vibrant city
that face considerable hurdles, but can fundamentally transform communities.
Low-cost, non-intrusive initiatives, like Open
Streets and Play Streets go directly to increasing physical activity, and also result in a multitude of other benefits. Experimental strategies, like Build a Better Block and Park-Making, are generally low-risk tactics that rely on neighborhood-based,
Top 10 By 2025 AFI information taken from AFI information taken from American College of Sports Medicine’s American Fitness Index (Chamness, Zollinger, Thompson, Ainsworth, Lewis, & Weathers, 2012)
grassroots leadership, but can revitalize neighborhoods and local economies.
In May 2012, Mayor Ballard and others in the Indianapolis community announced the Top 10 By 2025 Initiative (YMCA, 2012)
Likewise, emerging strategies to combat lack of access to fresh
This initiative, led by YMCA of Greater Indianapolis and other
fruits and vegetables are signaling an approach to providing
community partners aims to make Indianapolis one of the coun-
healthy choices in vulnerable and undeserved communities.
try’s top ten healthiest places to live by the year 2025. Four
Urban farms, farmers’ markets, the Farm-to-School program,
focus areas have been established:
and to a lesser degree, mobile markets, community gardens, and community supported agriculture (CSAs), are bringing
» Increasing Physical Activity
choice, as well as education and outreach, closer to neighbor-
» Improving Nutrition
hoods. Discussion about establishing a Central Indiana regional
» Decreasing Smoking
food hub has started, and a feasibility report by the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service is underway. In spite of
» Improving the Wellness Environment
inconclusive evidence about effectiveness, Philadelphia, a city Over the past year, the YMCA has been working with the Ameri-
breaking program aimed at placing fresh produce in corner mar-
Benton
Carroll
kets (Kliff, 2012), and First Lady Michelle Obama is working with
Lafayette
supermarkets to provide service in underserved communities
Tippecanoe Warren
Blackford
Kokomo Tipton
Clinton
(Kohan, 2012). Strategies are complex and for the most part
Grant
Howard
Madison
Anderson
facing longer odds than Indianapolis, is months into a ground-
disjointed. Outcomes are less clear and funding is unsteady. However, for a state with such agricultural heritage, a potential
Montgomery
Fountain
Boone
Hamilton
Delaware
Muncie
Henry
production.
Vermillion
economic boon underscores the need to pursue localizing food Hendricks
Parke
Marion
Hancock
Indianapolis-Carmel
Rush
Putnam
This paper is a working sketch of built-environment strategies seen throughout the country that seek to increase physical activity and revitalize neighborhoods . A future paper will explore strategies to improving nutrition and access to fruits and vegetables. Each day brings about new innovations, strategies, and partnerships that are worthy of additional consideration, so in a sense, this study is a moment in time. It is intended to serve as a basis for Indianapolis-based neighborhood approaches to solving physical activity and nutrition issues and is framed
Fay
Shelby Morgan Vigo
Terre Haute Sullivan
Johnson F
Clay Owen
Decatur
Bartholomew Monroe
Brown
Columbus Ripley
Bloomington Jennings Greene Jackson
The Indianapolis MSA includes Boone, Brown, Hamilton, Hancock, Hendricks, Johnson, Marion, Morgan, Putnam, and Shelby Counties. Courtesy of Indiana Business Research Center, www.stats.indiana.edu
within the context of helping the city achieve its Top 10 By 2025 goal. Not every idea in this sketch directly goes to improv-
can College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) to develop a plan to
ing the City’s score, but taken collectively, they aim to improve
meet the initiative’s goals. The progress of the initiative will be
the City’s physical, social, economic, and environmental health.
measured by the ACSM’s American Fitness Index (AFI). The
Strategies that span those categories will make Indianapolis a
AFI is published annually and measures various attributes of the
2
country’s top fifty Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Scores
Indy
Target
are tallied and each MSA is ranked. According to the 2012 AFI,
Parkland as a percent of city land area
4.8%
10.6%
the Indianapolis MSA ranks the 43rd out of 50.
Acres of parkland/1,000
13.8
18.6
Farmers’ markets/1,000,000
12.6
13.1
Park-related expenditures per capita
$43.00 $101.80
AFI scoring is based 30 indicators, 14 of which are personal health indicators and 16 of which are community/environmental indicators. The importance, or weight, of each element was determined through a series of surveys sent to 26 health and
Percent bicycling or walking to work
1.8%
2.8%
Percent using public transportation to work
0.9%
4.3%
Level of state requirement for Physical Educataion
3
2.5
Number of primary health care providers/100,000
103.1
105.6
physical activity experts. Each element was assigned impor-
Ball diamonds/10,000
0.7
1.9
tance; a weight of 1 was assigned to those elements that were
Dog parks/100,000
0.4
0.9
considered to be of little importance; 2 for those items consid-
Park playgrounds/10,000
1.6
2.3
ered to be of moderate importance; and 3 to those elements
Golf courses/100,000
1.6
0.9
considered of high importance. Each indicator was also ranked
Park units/10,000
2.6
4.1
(1-14 or 1-16, based upon category). The ranked indicator was
Recreational centers/20,000
0.6
1.0
then multiplied by the weight to produce a base set of scores
Swimming pools/100,000
2.7
3.1
for personal health indicators and community/environmental in-
Tennis courts/10,000
1.5
2.0
dicators. Though AFI does not publish indicator rankings or weighting, this information is important in pursuing those ele-
Attaining AFI’s Target Goals alone will not achieve the City’s goal of a top ten ranking. To do so, much more work will be neces-
ments determined to be most important in improving health.
sary. To demonstrate the enormity of that effort, following are The scoring system does not directly include a cities degree of connectivity, nor does it measure miles of sidewalks or bike-
the 2012 Indianapolis indicators compared against the same indicators as averaged for the Top 10 MSAs*.
ways. These elements of the physical environment are widely accepted as important in promoting physical activity. However, AFI does measure the percent of people using public trans-
Indy
Top 10
Parkland as a percent of city land area
4.8%
14.7%
Acres of parkland/1,000
13.8
14.9
portation, walking, or biking to work – all of which can indicate
Farmers’ markets/1,000,000
12.6
21.0
degrees of connectivity, and provisions for sidewalks and bike-
Park-related expenditures per capita
$43.00 $176.90
ways. A sound plan for improving physical activity would rec-
Percent bicycling or walking to work
1.8%
4.8%
ognize the need for these facilities, in addition to those directly
Percent using public transportation to work
0.9%
7.2%
measured in the AFI, such as the amount of tennis courts.
Level of state requirement for Physical Education
3
2.5
Number of primary health care providers/100,000
103.1
102.5
Ball diamonds/10,000
0.7
2.6
Dog parks/100,000
0.4
1.8
Park playgrounds/10,000
1.6
2.4
Golf courses/100,000
1.6
1.0
Park units/10,000
2.6
4.9
Recreational centers/20,000
0.6
1.3
Swimming pools/100,000
2.7
3.0
Tennis courts/10,000
1.5
2.3
The AFI accounts for food access by measuring numbers of farmers’ markets. Farmers’ markets are integral in supplying fresh food, yet urban farms, Farm-to-School programs, mobile markets, community gardens, community supported agriculture, and supermarkets and corner stores also contribute.
A
comprehensive strategy would seek to integrate these systems. Below is the scoring for Indianapolis’s community/environment indicators. As a tool that cities can use to make improvements, the AFI establishes a Target Goal for each indicator. Each Target Goal is based upon the MSA average for the period between 2008 and 2012. Elements marked blue scored at or better than
* (1) Minneapolis-St. Paul-Bloomington, MN-WI, (2) Washington-ArlingtonAlexandria, DC-VA-MD-WV, (3) Boston-Cambridge-Quincy, MA-NH, (4) San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA, (5) Hartford-West Hartford-East Hartford, CT, (6) Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA, (7) Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA, (8) Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA, (9) Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO, and (10) Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX.
the AFI’s Target Goal. Elements marked red scored worse than the Target Goal. 3
Though the Top 10 comparison illustrates the wide gap between
200
Indianapolis and the healthiest cities, it includes several cities of
180
much higher density than Indianapolis. Inclusion of those cities
160
may skew the importance of indicators based upon meeting
140
demands of a much larger and denser population. A more suit-
120
able comparison selects four of the top ten cities that have simi-
100
lar, though not identical, density rates as Indianapolis (Trust for
80
Public Land, 2010). This group of four cities can be considered
60
Peer Cities, and they have accomplished Indianapolis’s stated
40
goal of a top ten ranking.
20
18.6
20.5
21.0
13.8 20.4 12.6
Indy
Peers
Parkland as a percent of city land area
4.8%
12.1%
Acres of parkland/1,000
13.8
20.5
Farmers’ markets/1,000,000
12.6
20.4
Park-related expenditures per capita
$43.00 $130.50
Percent bicycling or walking to work
1.8%
3.6%
Percent using public transportation to work
0.9%
3.9%
Level of state requirement for Physical Education
3
1.8
Number of primary health care providers/100,000
103.1
89.9
Ball diamonds/10,000
0.7
2.8
Dog parks/100,000
0.4
2.5
Park playgrounds/10,000
1.6
2.5
Golf courses/100,000
1.6
1.1
Park units/10,000
2.6
4.4
Recreational centers/20,000
0.6
0.8
Swimming pools/100,000
2.7
3.5
Tennis courts/10,000
1.5
1.8
** (6) Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA, (7) Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA, (9) Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO, and (10) Austin-Round RockSan Marcos, TX.
14.9
13.1
7.0
6.0
5.0
4.00
3.55
3.00
2.55
2.00 Park-related expenditures per capita Number of primary health care providers/100,000 Acres of parkland/1,000
1.55
Farmers’ markets/1,000,000 Percent bicycling or walking to work Percent using public transportation to work
1.00
Parkland as a percent of city land area Ball diamonds/10,000 Dog parks/100,000 Park playgrounds/10,000
0.55
Level of state requirement for Physical Education
4
0.00 AFI Target Goals
Tennis courts/10,000
14.7%
4.8%
Indianapolis
Golf courses/100,000
12.1%
Top 10
10.6%
Recreational centers/20,000
Peer Cities
Swimming pools/100,000
90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent any physical activity or exercise in the last 30 days Indianapolis-Carmel, IN
Percent physically active at least moderately
Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA
Percent eating 5+ servings of fruits/vegetables per day
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO
Percent curr ently smoking Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX
Indianapolis-Peer City Comparison: Health Habits (note relative all other Peer Cities, Indianapolis’s lower physical activity levels and fruit and vegetable consumption, along with higher rates of smoking)
100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Percent less than Percent 18 to 64 18 years old years old Indianapolis-Carmel, IN
Percent 65 years old and older
Percent male
Percent high school graduate or higher
Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA
Percent White
Percent Black or African American
Percent Asian
Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
Percent Other Race
Percent Hispanic/Latino
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO
Percent unemployed
Percent of households below poverty level
Percent with disability
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX
Indianapolis-Peer City Comparison: Demographics (note the high percentage of African-American population in Indianapolis, a group with a higher prevalence of diabetes)
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0 Park-related expenditures per capita Indianapolis-Carmel, IN
Sacramento-Arden-Arcade-Roseville, CA
Number of primary health care providers per 100,000 Portland-Vancouver-Hillsboro, OR-WA
Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO
Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos, TX
Indianapolis-Peer City comparison: Park Expenditures to Healthcare Providers
5
6
Open Space Interventions
To achieve federal guidelines for recommended daily levels of
strongly enough that they were willing to individually take action
physical activity, children need access to safe spaces and plac-
to increase the amount of time and space for children’s play.
es to run, play, and enjoy time outdoors. The American Acad-
This indicates that parents value convenient, outdoor play for
emy of Pediatrics (AAP) notes that research has shown that
children of most ages and are motivated to make a difference
“as the percentage of park area within a child’s neighborhood
in their communities.
increases, so does the physical activity among children 4 to 7 years of age and nonoverweight children 8 to 12 years of age” (American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Environmental Health, 2009). The AAP, the Institute of Medicine, and Stanford University all recommend that the provision of facilities for
Comparisons information about Indy Parks is taken from 2009-2014 Indianapolis-Marion County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan.
play and opportunities for free play are key strategies to fighting childhood obesity (Sheridan Group, 2010). This is particularly
Cities plan for parks and open space in multiple ways and at
critical in our low-income urban neighborhoods where there are
multiple scales. In Indianapolis, parks are categorized as re-
fewer recreational facilities and where children are more likely
gional, community, neighborhood, mini, special use, golf cours-
to watch television (Sheridan Group, 2010). According to Play
es, natural resource areas, sports complexes, monuments/
Matters, a report sponsored by KaBOOM!, “The built environ-
memorials (Indy Parks and Recreation, 2009). Within all types
ment can support behavioral change in children…and many
of parks, facilities can include family recreation centers, aquatic
studies associate physical activity with time spent outdoors and
centers, and environmental education. Each category of park is
proximity to parks and recreational facilities.”
of a certain size, in a certain location, and is intended to serve a specific area. Other variables include park character, facilities,
Surveys cited in Play Matters found that a lack of nearby play
and programming opportunities.
spaces, busy schedules, and lack of adult supervision were the top three barriers to outdoor play. In the urban context,
According to the 2009-2014 Indianapolis-Marion County Park,
lack of adult supervision was at the top of the list. And though
Recreation & Open Space Plan (IMCPROS), almost half of the
70% of parents indicated that their children aged 2-12 preferred
city’s park space is accounted for in seven Regional parks,
outdoor play to indoor play, parents went on to report that their
which typically have more facilities and programming and are
children get only half of the amount of outdoor play per week
intended to serve adjacent communities and counties. The
as they feel is ideal. The study also indicated that 80% par-
seven parks are more or less evenly dispersed throughout Mar-
ents felt that it was important to have a play space or facility
ion County. Five of those seven are located along the county
within walking distance and the same percentage of parents felt
boundaries, and two (Garfield and Riverside) are located just 7
inside of the Center Township boundary.
space and park space is something that’s very much on (Ballard’s) radar screen and something he very much wants to do,”
IMCPROS defines a Community park as intended to serve two
but the City is more focused on improving the current park sys-
or more neighborhoods, typically between 25 and 100 acres,
tem. Budget declines of 22% since 2008 have tightened fund-
and has a target service area of 0.5 to 3.0 miles. The IM-
ing for new parks, and the city instead encourages residents
CPROS indicates that a site’s natural character should play a
to create community gardens and private parks on abandoned
very significant role in site selection. Other factors, such as
land (Murray, 2012).
ease of access to the service area, central location, and relationship to other parks should be considered. These parks are
This response closely aligns with the Mayor’s second term pri-
of a size that they can include larger footprints required by ball
orities. During his campaign for a second term in Fall of 2011,
fields and swimming pools.
Indianapolis has 23 Community
Mayor Ballard prioritized expanding the greenways system,
parks totaling almost 900 acres, approximately 9% of overall
increasing partnerships for parks programs, developing part-
parkland. Most are clustered inside I-465, and eight are located
nerships to sustain key parks, achieving CAPRA (Commission
within Center Township.
for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies) gold status from the National Recreation and Parks Association, a handful
Neighborhood and Mini-parks, which comprise approximately
of construction projects, and support for the land stewardship
10% of overall parkland, are intended to service an area within
division (Greg Ballard for Mayor).
a 10 minute (Mini-park) or 20 minute (Neighborhood park) walk. Neighborhood parks can be up to 25 acres, but are optimally
However, to effectively make progress toward achieving a top
sized for 7-10 acres and can include ball fields, depending on
ten AFI ranking, the City may need to commit to substantial,
park size. Center Township is home to 25 of 73 Neighbor-
annual investment in new parks facilities. This investment must
hood parks in Marion County. Mini-parks can be as small as
take into account the needs of today’s residents and the in-
2,500 square feet and as large as one acre. Their size and ser-
creased needs with population growth over time. And though
vice area make them ideal candidates to occupy vacant lots in
the IMCPROS compares the City’s park system to eleven other
residential neighborhoods. They are intended to provide open
cities – Seattle, Minneapolis, San Francisco, Portland, St. Louis,
space in denser areas without access to other parks. Accord-
Atlanta, Detroit, Cincinnati, Houston, Columbus, and Milwaukee
ing to IMCPROS, the cost of developing Mini-parks is high in
– just one of those cities (Portland) is an AFI Top 10 Peer City.
relation to the number of people served, and the parks are only
So in order to develop strategies for an improved parks system,
created if neighborhood partners are willing and able to commit
well-performing, like-density cities are worth examining. The fol-
to development and long-term maintenance endowments, as
lowing overview of Top 10 Peer Cities indicates trends that may
well as sweat-equity to the project. Out of the 24 Mini-parks in
serve as strategies for Indianapolis. Note that detailed informa-
Marion County, 19 are located within Center Township.
tion on the Austin parks system was not available.
Relative to parks and open space, the AFI places an em-
Top 10 Peer Cities place a different emphasis on indicators than
phasis parkland as a percent of city land area, acres of park-
the AFI Target Goals and the averages from all Top 10 cities. In
land/1,000 residents, park-related expenditures per capita, ball
both comparisons, less value is placed on the number of pri-
diamonds/10,000 residents, dog parks/100,000 residents,
mary health care providers, the percent taking public transpor-
park playgrounds/10,000 residents, golf courses/100,000
tation to work, the state requirement for physical education, and
residents, park units/10,000 residents, recreational cen-
the ratios of tennis courts and recreation centers. On the flip
ters/20,000 residents, swimming pools/100,000 residents, and
side, more value is placed on the amount of acres of parkland
tennis courts/10,000 residents. In the 2012 report, Indianapolis
per 1,000 residents, ratios of swimming pools, ball diamonds,
ranked near the bottom for many indicators. With the release
park playgrounds, and dog parks. Mixed emphasis indicators
of the 2012 AFI, the City received heavy criticism for poor parks
include: park units per 10,000 residents, bicycling or walking to
figures. In defense, Marc Lotter, spokesman for Mayor Ballard
work, and golf courses.
noted in a recent Indianapolis Star article that ““Urban green 8
Courtesy: 2009-2014 Indianapolis-Marion County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan
9
Courtesy: City of Sacramento Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2005-2010 Technical Update
10
Bureau Notes
Portland Parks & Recreation Sample Level Of Service (Households 1/2 Mile From A Park)
Percent Of Households Meeting Level Of Service Goal (FY 2011-12)
Portland Parks & Recreation (PP&R) manages over 7,500 acres of natural areas and over 3,400 acres of developed parks – about 12 percent of Portland’s land base. In addition to developed parks and natural areas, there are five golf courses, nine botanical gardens, 151 miles of trails, an arboretum and a raceway. PP&R also manages over a million square feet of buildings, including 13 swimming pools, 18 community and arts centers, 86 picnic areas, 97 permanent restroom buildings, stadiums and one historic mansion. Recreation facilities include playgrounds, sports courts and fields, community gardens, dog off-leash areas, docks and river-related facilities, skateparks, and spray-play and water features. PP&R oversees the City’s urban forestry program.
205
5
62% - 69% 70% - 76%
Infrastructure assets in Portland’s park system are currently valued at almost $900 million, and include built and natural assets. This multitude of parklands, recreation facilities, support facilities, trees, and natural areas contribute to access to nature, recreational opportunity, environmental quality, and livability within the city.
77% - 84% 85% - 91%
A variety of other agencies and organizations provide park and recreation services to Portland residents, either independently or in partnership with PP&R. These include Metro and neighboring jurisdictions, the state of Oregon, public and private schools, non-profit agencies, homeowners’ associations, churches, and private social, athletic and fitness clubs.
NPNS
Hydro Parks
Asset Management PP&R collects and compares data on asset condition and customer demand for park use. The data is used to identify capital needs and budgets, develop consistent maintenance and operations regimes, fulfill City and federal reporting requirements, inform system planning, and support financial forecasting. In short, asset management helps prioritize capital projects and allocate scarce resources.
5
CNN
NECN
84
84 405
5
EPNO
26
Other Public Open Space Coalitions
Level of Service - Park Experience PP&R's 2020 Vision includes a goal to "Provide a wide variety of high quality recreation services and opportunities for all residents." An objective of this goal, and a measure of our level of service, is to provide a park experience within a half mile (approximately 10 to 15 minute walk) of every Portland resident. The park experience includes developed parks (parks with, at a minimum, grass, trees, circulation, open play areas and seating), and accessible natural areas over 1/6 of an acre in size.
205
NWNW
CENT
92% - 98% Portland Parks & Recreation
CENT - Central City CNN - Central Northeast Neighborhood EPNO - East Portland Neighborhood Office NECN - Northeast Coalition of Neighborhoods NPNS - North Portland Neighborhood Services
Map Explanation Map 1 shows the percentage of households in each Neighborhood Coalition that are within 1/2 mile walk of a park or natural area. The 1/2 mile distance is calculated using the walkable street and trail system, so parks in areas with poor transportation circulation systems have smaller service areas and serve fewer people. The calculation also takes into account walkability to actual park entry points. Typically, the districts with lower levels of service are the more recently annexed parts of the city, where former county parks with fewer amenities were added to the system. PP&R is actively working to improve that level of service. In 2010, the percentage of households within a 1/2 mile walk of a developed park or natural area was 77%; in 2011, it was 79%.
NWNW - Neighbors West/Northwest SEUL - Southeast Uplift Neighborhood Coalition SWNI - Southwest Neighbors, Inc.
Coalition Park Level Of Service CENT: CNN: EPNO: NECN: NPNS: NWNW: SEUL: SWNI:
As PP&R works to meet the ½ mile goal, it faces the following challenges:
SEUL 205
- Properties with the capacity and characteristics to provide a reasonable park experience are not always available in the areas of greatest need. - Funds for acquisition of new park land often come with restrictions on how or where they can be used. For example, funds which come from Parks Service Development Charges (SDC) can only be used to address needs created by population growth, not to remedy deficiencies in levels of service. Funds that come from Urban Renewal Areas (URA) are restricted to parks within that geographic area. These restrictions slow progress in meeting the goal.
217
SWNI
While PP&R is actively working to provide services in areas currently not meeting this level of service goal, we also must maintain and operate the existing parks and open spaces and facilities that currently meet this level of service. Developed parks need to have the grass mowed, trash picked up, and picnic tables maintained. Keeping existing services operational is as important as expanding the system. The expense map reflects all PP&R expenses.
5
98% 63% 62% 77% 93% 88% 85% 75%
The information on this map was derived from City of Portland GIS databases. Care was taken in the creation of this map but it is provided "as-is". The City of Portland cannot accept any reponsibility for error, omissions, or positional accuracy, and therefore, there are no warranties which accompany this product. However, notification of any errors will be appreciated.
The percentage of households within a ½ mile walk of a developed park or natural area does not include undeveloped properties or properties not owned or managed by PP&R. While shown on the map for context, not all of these properties are open for general public recreation, even though they are open spaces. Therefore, PP&R does not count them towards the level of service.
Courtesy: Portland Parks & Recreation
In the case of parkland amount the emphasis noted above sug-
Denver
Peers
Units
6.0%
12.1%
5,902
gests that for cities of lower density, it may be more advanta-
Parkland as a percent of city land area
geous to consider the amount of park space not in terms of
Acres of parkland/1,000
9.7
20.5
5,902
overall percentage of city land, but based on amount of land
Park units/10,000
2.6
4.1
250
Sac.
Peers
Units
8.2%
12.1%
5,069
per 1,000 residents. For larger, spread out cities, this can make quite a difference. For instance, if Indianapolis were to prioritize parkland growth relative to acres/1,000 residents, then 5,408 acres of parkland would need to be added to the system to match Top 10 Peer City averages.
Parkland as a percent of city land area Acres of parkland/1,000
10.9
20.5
5,069
Park units/10,000
2.6
4.8
222
Conversely, if
prioritized based upon parkland as a percent of city land area,
Portland Peers
Units
16.1%
13,864
then 16,845 acres of parkland would need to be added to the
Parkland as a percent of city land area
system to match Top 10 Peer City averages. This is a substan-
Acres of parkland/1,000
24.5
20.5
13,864
tial difference. To determine which approach best affects AFI
Park units/10,000
2.6
5.4
303
Austin
Peers
Units
18.0%
12.1%
28,911
score, a review of indicator weighting is necessary, but more so, and understanding of the effectiveness of different park scales is more appropriate as adding parks for the sake of growth may not be the best strategy. Note the values listed below, and
Parkland as a percent of city land area
12.1%
Acres of parkland/1,000
36.8
20.5
28,911
Park units/10,000
2.6
3.4
267
reported in AFI are for city, not MSA, land area. By population, Indianapolis is the largest city listed below.
Though Indianapolis is the largest city by population, it has the least amount of park units/10,000 per resident (just 208), than
Ind.
Peers
Add
all other Peer Cities. To merely catch up to the Peer Cities,
Parkland as a percent of city land area
4.8%
12.1%
16,845
Indianapolis would need to add 147 parks. This is a glaring
Acres of parkland/1,000
13.8
20.5
5,408
deficiency and emphasizes that park acreage may not neces-
Park units/10,000
2.6 (208) 4.4
147
sarily be the most important indicator, but that parks access to 11
neighborhoods might. To understand this, it bears looking into
plan more Neighborhood parks that are walkable to residents.
how the healthier Peer Cities are prioritizing green space.
This strategy aligns with the Play Matters recommendations for convenient access to play areas.
Both Indianapolis and Sacramento determine the number of Neighborhood and Community parks based upon a ratio per
Emphasizing Neighborhood parks does not necessarily dimin-
1,000 residents. Indianapolis also indicates a service area of
ish the need to add increase the number of Community Parks.
½ to 3 miles for these parks, as does Sacramento. However,
Ball diamonds, recreation centers, tennis courts, and swimming
Sacramento places more importance on Neighborhood parks
pools are family amenities which are more suited for larger-scale
(2.5/1,000) than does Indianapolis (1.3/1,000) and less impor-
parks that can accommodate parking, changing facilities, and
tance on Community parks (2.5/1,000 vs. 6.0/1,000), and also
lighting.
suggests that the location of Neighborhood parks be closely associated with elementary schools on secondary streets
Ind.
Peers
Add
and that smaller urban pocket parks be constructed as part
Ball diamonds/10,000
0.7
2.8
170
of private development projects (City of Sacramento Parks and
Swimming pools/100,000
2.7
3.5
6
Recreation Department, 2009). Sacramento’s emphasis on
Recreational centers/20,000
0.6
0.8
9
Neighborhood parks and the corresponding ½ mile distance
Tennis courts/10,000
1.5
1.8
24
requirement acknowledges the importance of convenient and accessible open space.
To preserve capital resources for development of more Neighborhood parks, consideration should be given to integrating
In Vision 2020, Portland Parks & Recreation Department’s 1999 master plan, the City did not specify a ratio of park space per resident, but instead set a goal of providing a basic, developed
these facilities into large existing parks with adequate infrastructure where determined necessary and compatible with existing facilities.
Neighborhood park facility within a ½ mile of every Portland resident, and a Community park within one mile of every resident. Moreover, the distance is calculated using the walkable street and trail system, so parks in areas with poor transportation circulation systems have smaller service areas and serve fewer people. In 2010, the percentage of households within a ½ mile walk was 79% (Portland Parks & Recreation).
Making progress towards improving AFI rankings will be essential to reaching the Top 10 by 2025 goal, however, overall health strategies should focus on providing the right kinds of spaces rather than adding elements such as swimming pools or tennis courts to fill holes in the scorecard. Based upon the large portion of Indianapolis that lacks walkable access to Neighborhood parks, and with an understanding that Peer Cities priori-
Similarly, Denver’s Game Plan, the City’s 2003 parks master plan recommends that play areas and play opportunities be located no more than ½ mile apart and not greater than ¼ mile
tize creating Neighborhood parks, Indianapolis parks expansion should strongly focus on adding more of Neighborhood parks throughout the city.
from residents and without crossing major barriers such as arterial streets (Denver Parks and Recreation, 2003). Both Denver and Portland place a very strong emphasis on walkability in lieu of ratios. Though IMCPROS includes a ½ distance guideline, the calculation that determines level of parks service is based
Neighborhood Greening Information about Keep Indianapolis Beautiul taken form the organization’s website.
upon ratios. Additionally, Indianapolis measures distances by radius, which does not take into account connectivity and walkability. An exhibit published in the 2009 IMCPROS indicates vast areas of the city without ½-mile access to Community or Neighborhood Parks.
In light of the City’s stated plan for parks resources, one strategy that is helping to provide sought-after green space closer to neighborhood residents is made possible through Keep Indianapolis Beautiful (KIB), a non-profit 501c(3) organization that aims to build community and transform underutilized public
This examination indicates that Peer Cities are making efforts to 12
spaces in Indianapolis (Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc., 2012).
Similarly, the Indy Land Bank aims to remove abandoned structures and creates opportunities for block-by-block development and green space (Greg Ballard for Mayor). The 30-year KIB organization relies on volunteers to carry out the work, and donations from individuals, corporations, foundations, civic groups, and a professional service contract with the City of Indianapolis. Among other projects, the group works with neighborhoods, community-based organizations, churches, and schools to help transform land into community gardens, pocket parks, and to
A Keep Indianapolis Beautiful Pocket Park: Daniel T. Webster School 46 before renovation (top), and during renovations (bottom three) Courtesy: Keep Indianapolis Beautiful
A Keep Indianapolis Beautiful Pocket Park: Paige Lynn Booker Memorial Park before renovation (top), and during renovations (bottom) Courtesy: Keep Indianapolis Beautiful
13
contribute to the urban forest through tree plantings.
don’t currently exist. Unfortunately, the program is limited and can only fund a portion of the proposed projects. Residents’
Through a 27-year relationship with Indianapolis Power & Light
desire to create these types of parks and the City’s glaring de-
(IPL) and the City of Indianapolis, KIB has accomplished a num-
ficiency in providing them demonstrate a need to study how to
ber of community transformation projects. Through its GreenS-
accomplish this goal on a greater scale.
pace Project, each year the group awards grants to applicants who wish to create a pocket park, gateway, or community garden in their neighborhood. The applicant must make a case
Case Study: Denver Learning Landscapes
for the project and develop a long-term maintenance plan for
Information taken from Play Matters: A Study of Best Practices to Inform Local Policy and Process in Support of Children’s Play.
the garden after the project is completed. The grant covers the cost of plant materials, tools, and project management expertise, while neighborhoods are asked to provide the volunteers.
What began as a grassroots effort by landscape architecture
In 2011, KIB received over 60 applications and awarded 11
professor Lois Brink in 1992 to improve playgrounds at schools
grants.
in Denver, has resulted in a complete overhaul of all schoolyards throughout the Denver Public Schools (DPS). Initially,
The KIB program demonstrates that Indianapolis neighborhood
Brink challenged her students to create a “learning landscape”
residents value parks within close proximity and are willing to
for Bromwell Elementary School. Designs generated interest
personally invest time and effort to transform underutilized spac-
among residents and DPS officials, who were engaged ear-
es into community assets. The staggering amount of volunteers
ly in the process, and fundraising began. Over three years,
who contribute to KIB projects – 46,000 in 2011 alone – is
$250,000 was raised in the community to fund and build the
an indicator that residents understand the importance of these
project. The success of the project prompted broader support
small spaces, and are motivated to provide them where they
for future initiatives, but challenges lied in adapting the Bromwell
A Denver Public School Learning Landscape at Cory Elementary School Courtesy: Learning Landsapes
14
Volunteers pitch in at a Denver Public School Learning Landscape Courtesy: Learning Landsapes
A Denver Public School Learning Landscape at Cory Elementary School Courtesy: Learning Landsapes
model, which was located in an affluent neighborhood where
proved playgrounds for their schools, but fell outside of OED’s
funds were more easily raised, to underserved communities
initially-targeted underserved areas. In response, the DPS Board
that may not be able to generate as much financial support, but
proposed and passed two separate bond measures in 2003
were in desperate need of attention.
and 2008 totaling $39 million to fund Learning Landscapes at every remaining schoolyard – 61 in total – in Denver. As of 2010
A second project, at Garden Place Elementary, was launched
(the date of Play Matters publication), 48 of those schoolyards
in an attempt to reproduce the Bromwell success in an under-
were transformed into Learning Landscapes. As part of the
served area. The school’s principal, Alvina Crouse, demonstrat-
agreement to proceed with construction, DPS agreed to com-
ed effective support of the project, and even personally con-
mit to approximately $25,000 per year in maintenance for each
tributed $15,000 to the $283,000 project. She spearheaded
renovated site.
intense fundraising efforts across public and private sectors and gained broad support and commitment to the project. In 2001,
Qualitative data collected impressions of the transformations.
Garden Place was transformed into a colorful play space with
Eighty percent of teachers report that students are more physi-
irrigated lawn, trees, gardens, shade structures, and student
cally active during recess, and that schoolyard fights have de-
artwork.
creased. Vandalism has been minor and the playgrounds are well-used after school hours by community residents. In 2009,
Based upon the success of Garden Place, the Learning Land-
the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation funded a study to ex-
scape Alliance (LLA), a public-private partnership was formed to
amine whether playground redevelopment leads to increased
bring projects to more underserved areas. At the same time,
physical activity. The System for Observing Play and Leisure
Denver’s Office of Economic Development launched an $80
Activity in Youth (SOPLAY) was used to measure physical ac-
million campaign to invest in underserved communities.
tivity levels, and observations conclude that renovated play-
For
projects at 22 schools in underserved areas, LLA generated
grounds result in significantly higher levels of physical activity.
project-specific proposals, plans, budgets, and identified funding options for potential corporate donors. Using Garden place
Learning Landscapes, a grassroots effort started in 1992, has
as a model, the OED awarded $5.1 million in grants to the pro-
blossomed into a community-supported undertaking to revamp
gram, which LLA leveraged into in-kind donations by the private
schoolyards in Denver. Public and private support enabled the
sector. Over three years, $9 million was raised by LLA, and 22
program to reach 18,000 students in the public school system,
playgrounds were renovated as Learning Landscapes.
and the resulting implementation has transformed underutilized and underperforming spaces into centers of physical activity
Widespread accomplishments of Learning Landscapes were
during and after school.
then noticed by neighborhoods and schools who sought im15
Cases Study: St. Petersburg Play ‘n’ Close to Home
ment from Mayor Baker – he hand-selects play equipment –
Information taken from Play Matters: A Study of Best Practices to Inform Local Policy and Process in Support of Children’s Play.
have helped to maintain focus on the program, and progress is tracked through weekly updates from cabinet-level officials. Each year, the program receives $500,000 for new play-
Throughout the country, cities are increasing and improving the
grounds. This is funded through a portion of St. Petersburg’s
amount green space closer to residents, in spite of tightening
share of Penny for Pinellas, a voter supported, 1 percent sales
budgets. Like Portland, St. Petersburg, FL has established a
tax earmarked for infrastructure. Voters have supported this tax
goal of providing green space closer to home. In St. Peters-
since 1990 (Pinellas County, 2012).
burg, the Play ‘n’ Close to Home program was announced in 2001 by Mayor Rick Baker with a goal of providing a playground
Over the course of eight years, the program has funded 25
within a half- mile from every child in the city. Mayor Baker ad-
new playgrounds throughout the city, most located near un-
vocated for the program by suggesting that playgrounds within
derserved populations. On average, $75,000 was spent on
walking distance are a quality of life and civil rights issue and
each playground. Eight of these new playgrounds are located
residents will feel differently about their neighborhoods if they
on school grounds, replacing inadequate and outdated equip-
are able to walk to a playground. At the time of announcement,
ment. To accomplish this, and to ensure playgrounds would be
just 49 percent of all children under the age of 18 lived within the
available to residents after school hours, the city worked with
half-mile target of a playground. In just eight years, that figure
school principals and the school board developed joint-use
has grown to 75 percent.
agreements to share liability and insurance costs.
The program’s success is due in large part to strong mayoral
The St. Petersburg case study demonstrates that residents
leadership, high-level staff oversight, and strong support from
are willing to invest tax dollars to support high visibility projects
other elected city officials and city council.
aimed at bringing parks closer to home. The collaboration with
Direct involve-
schools not only resulted in upgraded facilities, but also in the playgrounds accessibility to residents after school hours.
Case Study: Miami Grand Central Park As seen in the Denver and St. Petersburg case studies, creating park space in underserved areas is an important strategy, but can be costly to implement, particularly on a large scale. In Miami, a new 5-acre green space, called Grand Central Park was recently built for 14,000 residents at a cost of just $200,000 in just 30 days (Lydon, 2012). The project was led by Omni Parkwest Redevelopment Association (OPRA), whose mission is to “promotes neighborhood improvement projects, such as progressive streetscapes, bicycle infrastructure, parks and green spaces, and sustainable, practical transport systems. Our projects are designed to be shovel-ready and low cost and to immediately realize a reduction of slum and blight in the identified project scope.“ (Omni Parkwest Redevelopment Association, 2012). Funding for park construction was provided by a grant and design serves were donated. Park programming, such as con16
Nighttime at Miami’s Grand Central Park, photo by photo by Derek Cole
certs, food vendors, events, festivals, markets, etc., will gener-
mining how to get there is to recognize the needs of the city
ate park use fees, which will pay for the land lease and park
first. Given the amount of vacant land in Indianapolis’s urban
maintenance. According to OPRA, the park can accommodate
core, the approach that Peer Cities have taken, and the City’s
8,000 visitors for special events and overflow parking for 200
deficiencies, increasing the number of walkable, Neighborhood
automobiles.
parks in denser areas should be a top priority. As noted earlier, these parks have the potential to increase physical activity, and
This model, termed Park-Making (Lydon, 2012) borrows from
thus improve health.
the success of the PARK(ing) Day model, which temporarily transforms a single parking space into a pedestrian-oriented
Neighborhood parks can take on a wide range of character-
space over the course of one day. In this case, the short-term
istics, and to encourage play for children, research indicates
goal is to build a temporary – as in a couple of years – park in
that free/unstructured play is shown to increase levels of activity
a quick timeframe. In the long-term, it is hoped that temporary
(Sheridan Group, 2010). This might suggest a more natural
parks prove to be viable and worthy of permanent solutions. In
approach to park development as opposed to a traditional ap-
the short months since the park was opened, it has been de-
proach that might include prefabricated play structures. Dog
clared a resounding success.
parks and playgrounds, mainstays in urban neighborhood, can also be integrated into these smaller footprint sites. Based upon the AFI, Indianapolis lags behind Peer Cities for both of
Conclusions
these indicators.
Relative to parks and open space, Indianapolis faces a steep climb to reach its Top 10 by 2025 goal. The caution in deter-
As the Denver and St. Petersburg case studies indicate, fund17
ing this priority will have to span public and private realms, and the YMCA and other Top 10 by 2025 partners are well-suited to lead this charge. Generating local neighborhood interest can
Next Steps In the next phase of this study, an analysis of underserved areas will be conducted to determine greatest needs.
be an effective tool to increase support and fundraising potential. It will be important to identify and involve neighborhood/ community leaders.
Following the analysis, a comprehensive plan with proposed interventions will be prepared. Interventions will be based upon those identified herein and others that may emerge.
The Denver and St. Petersburg case studies illustrate that a charismatic individual or group championing efforts is essential to building coalitions and generating widespread support. The Denver effort began as a grassroots initiative that, through early and visible successes garnered attention and became a system-wide program Denver Public Schools. Conversely, Mayor Baker led the charge in St. Petersburg, fighting for what he thought was right for city neighborhoods and building support along the way. Voter-endorsed, public financing supported the Play ‘n’ Close to Home initiative, and a public-private mix funded Learning Landscapes. In both examples, schools emerged as common allies to improving and increasing accessibility to open space. Perhaps the built-in sense of community at elementary schools, and their proximity to residents make them ideal candidates. Groundbreaking initiatives like Miami’s Grand Central Park embody the essence of a grassroots campaign. This model seeks to generate interest and support for permanent park construction through modest short-term investment. The long-term solution still requires significant investment, so future efforts may look at ways to generate additional revenue in the temporary phasae to help fund permanent construction. Based upon the scale of park, this tactic may be better suited to build the case for Community parks. Examples in St. Petersburg, Denver, and Miami illustrate community-driven and community-endorsed approaches that have the potential to supplement existing programs like those run through KIB. Unlike mandates, such as requiring developers to provide public open space as part of a development project, community-driven/community-endorsed initiatives are collaborative efforts that seek to provide open space where it is needed and where it will be used in a neighborhood. Indianapolis is blessed with many talented and effective community organizations and entrepreneurial individuals, making programs like those seen around the country a very real possibility locally. 18
Finally, a set of design guidelines will be developed to accompany strategies.
Street Interventions
In a 2011 interview, Mayor Ballard noted, “We must make India-
Together, RebuildIndy and a Complete Streets ordinance could
napolis the type of city where families want to live, businesses
signal good news for creating the livable neighborhoods that
want to create jobs and neighborhoods can thrive“ (Ballard,
Mayor Ballard described in 2011. However, though the Re-
2011). Current City projects, such as the greenways expansion
buildIndy program is, and will be, investing many millions in re-
from 60 to 200 miles by 2015 (Greg Ballard for Mayor), demon-
paving streets throughout the city, there are many more streets
strate that the City is promoting more livable communities. The
to repair and rebuild to Complete Streets standards than can be
two-year old RebuildIndy infrastructure program targets roads,
accommodated through RebuildIndy. Given the magnitude, it is
bridges, and trails. The program was made possible by the
necessary that companion strategies be considered and imple-
sale of public utilities and has invested $182 million in the City’s
mented to create those sought-after livable neighborhoods.
infrastructure through fall of 2011 (City of Indianapolis, 2012), Much more investment is on the horizon.
A brief overview of Complete Streets and several companion Street Interventions are documented in this paper. These tac-
More positive news came at the June 2012 Indianapolis City-
tics range in level of complexity and the investment amount.
County Council meeting, when a Complete Streets ordinance
All require design principles and guidelines when it comes to
was introduced and assigned to committee for hearing (Re-
their application. Those critical components will be outlined in
ports, 2012). If passed, a Complete Streets ordinance would
a future study.
represent a milestone for Indianapolis by committing, through ordinance, the City to a policy that includes all transportation modes in the planning, design, and implementation of infra-
Complete Streets
structure projects. This policy, and its resulting implementation, indirectly applies to the City’s Top 10 by 25 goal. Though the AFI measures the percent of people using public transportation, walking, or biking to work, it does not directly measure how streets promote walkability and connectivity, nor does it quantify the amount of bikelanes or sidewalks. These elements are associated with increased levels of physical activity, and as such
A comprehensive, safe, and functional network of sidewalks and bicycle lanes provides the connectivity necessary to link homes, neighborhood retail districts, neighborhood parks, transit stops, and schools. Well-designed and connected streets are the backbone of a city; they support livability and economic development objectives and create more travel choices.
are critical components of strategies that improve health, which is measured by the AFI.
Complete Streets is a leading Street Intervention that seeks to reverse decades of auto-centric transportation planning. Complete Streets is a concept/initiative, but communities throughout 19
the country have embraced the concept’s ideals, have adopted
can Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA), the American
policies, and have incorporated Complete Streets planning prin-
Public Works Association (APWA), the Congress for the New
ciples into construction projects. Implementing this intervention
Urbanism (CNU), the National Recreation and Park Association
can be costly and can require significant planning and design,
(NRPA), the American Planning Association (APA), the Institute
depending on the goal of the project. However, it is a long-term
of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the Urban Land Institute (ITE),
solution that promotes physical activity through the inclusion of
the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NAC-
all modes of transportation in the planning, design, and con-
TO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
struction of streets.
the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Society of Civil
The National Complete Streets Coalition advocates for funda-
Engineers (ASCE).
mental street transformation by altering the typical approach to roadway planning, design, and construction. Recognizing that
To encourage implementation, the National Complete Streets
each street is unique to its community context, the policies of
Coalition promotes adoption of Complete Street policies at the
Complete Streets are broad in scope. A complete street “may
state, regional, and local levels. A growing number of commu-
include: sidewalks, bike lanes (or wide paved shoulders), spe-
nities have adopted such policies. In total, over 350 regional
cial bus lanes, comfortable and accessible public transporta-
and local jurisdictions and 26 states have adopted policies or
tion stops, frequent and safe crossing opportunities, median
have made written commitment to do so (National Complete
islands, accessible pedestrian signals, curb extensions, nar-
Streets Coalition). At the June 4, 2012 Indianapolis City-County
rower travel lanes, roundabouts, and more.” (National Complete
Council meeting, a Complete Streets ordinance was introduced
Streets Coalition). At the heart of the effort is a desire to encour-
and assigned to committee for hearing (Reports, 2012).
age multimodal use of the street and to enable safe access for all users – pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists, and public trans-
The Indianapolis proposed ordinance is a greatly detailed docu-
portation users.
ment that summarizes the many benefits of Complete Streets and puts into place a process for implementing and evaluating
The concept of Complete Streets has garnered widespread ac-
the effectiveness of the program. In detailing the need for a
ceptance from private and public entities throughout the united
Complete Streets policy, of the proposed ordinance states:
states. Many industry-leading organizations endorse and support Complete Streets policies. Among them are: the Ameri-
» Indianapolis strives to be a “liveable community” and a
Complete Street, the ndianapolis Cultural Trail. Courtesy: sitephocus.com
20
well-balanced and connected transportation system that allows for safe walking and biking and efficient, robust public transit is a vital component of a “livable community” » Complete Streets are a sound financial investment in our community that provides long-term savings, in that a transportation budget can incorporate Complete Streets projects without requiring additional funding » CEOs for Cities released a report called “Walking the Walk” which measured the dollars and cents value that homes in walkable areas — all other things being equal — command over homes with “average walkability,” and found that in 13 of the 15 housing markets they studied, increased neighborhood walkability was positively correlated with highly significant price increases » Creating Complete Streets also reduces infrastructure costs by requiring far less pavement per user compared to increasing road capacity for vehicles alone; this saves money at the onset of the project and reduces maintenance costs over the long-term; and » The U.S. Census Bureau projects that by 2025, the portion of Marion County residents over 65 will increase from 11% to 16%, totaling nearly 150,000 people, and they need the public right-of-way to better serve them by safe places to walk, bicycle, or board the bus, and by designing the streets to better accommodate older drivers » More than one third of Americans do not drive due to age, disability, or poverty and need transportation alternative » In Marion County, 40% of our children are overweight or at-risk for becoming overweight and nearly two thirds of adults are overweight or obese, and incomplete streets mean many people lack opportunities to be active as part of daily life » The Metropolitan Development Commission adopted Multimodal Design Guidelines which address inclusion of biking and walking infrastructure on city roads, and Indianapolis was recently awarded a bronze designation as a “Bicycle Friendly Community” by the League of American Bicyclists
Beyond detailing the need for Complete Streets, the ordinance outlines the elements of the policy, which follow the ideal tenelement Complete Streets Policy developed by the National Complete Streets Coalition.
The Indianapolis ordinance in-
cludes the following categories: Complete Streets Vancover, WA in Lake Sata Cruz, CA, Oswego, OR, and East Lansing, MI (from top to bottom) Courtesy: pedbikeimages.org
» Definition of Complete Streets 21
» Complete Streets Policy
consideration and multi-modal streets to create walkable com-
» Scope of Complete Streets Applicability
munities.” (National Complete Streets Coalition). The document details Complete Streets-type planning principles and strate-
» Exceptions
gies that attempt to integrate walking, bicycling, and transit into
» Design Standards
the practice of street planning and design. A summary of the
» Performance Measures
important elements of the ITE report is included as an appendix
» Implementation and Reporting
The proposed ordinance proves guidance for design standards as “The City shall follow accepted or adopted design standards
to this study.
Home Zones
and use the best and latest design standards available. In rec-
In 2009, FHWA, AASHTO, and the National Cooperative High-
ognition of context sensitivity, public input and the needs of
way Research Program (NCHRP) sponsored the International
many users, a flexible, innovative and balanced approach that
Technology Scanning Program to evaluate foreign technolo-
follows other appropriate design standards may be considered,
gies and practices that could significantly benefit U.S. systems
provided that a comparable level of safety for all users is pres-
(Fischer, et al., Februay 2010). In 2009, a team visited Den-
ent.” It also requires that “The Department of Public Works, the
mark, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United King-
Department of Metropolitan Development, the Office of Sustain-
dom, countries who enjoy higher mode shares of pedestrian
ability and other relevant departments, agencies, or committees
and bicyclists than the United States, to learn more about their
will review current design standards, including subdivision regu-
pedestrian and bicycling safety and mobility practices and how
lations which apply to new roadway construction, to ensure that
they might apply to practices in the United States. Their findings
they reflect the best available design standards and guidelines,
and conclusions were published in 2010 as the European Pe-
and effectively implement Complete Streets, where feasible.”
destrian Bicycle Safety and Mobility Practices, identified numerous practices that should be considered in the United States to
The latter requirement could read stronger to require a new set
improve walking and biking safety and mobility. A summary of
of design standards be developed. This should be prepared by
compelling strategies is included in the Appendix. Since issuing
a multi-disciplinary team of consultants and City personnel and
their initial report, the scan team has since advocated for com-
should incorporate elements of the referenced documents as
munities adopting Complete Streets policies.
well as leading practices that other cities have included. . A promising practice identified by the Scan Team was LowShould Indianapolis adopt the Complete Streets policy that is
Speed Street Design. This concept goes by several names
now in City-County Council hearing committee, then a techni-
throughout the world, including Home Zones, Woonerfs, and
cal manual should be developed by a multi-disciplinary team of
Tempo 30 Zones, and is similarly seen in a handful of communi-
consultants and City personnel to guide designers in consis-
ties throughout the United States. A second FHWA-sponsored
tently applying standards throughout City projects. The basis
report Home Zone Concepts and New Jersey (Alan M. Voor-
for that manual might be existing manuals in the Department
hees Transportation Center, New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian
of Public Works, the Department of Metropolitan Development,
Resource Center, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and
and the Office of Sustainability, as well as the 2010 Institute
Public Policy, 2004) notes that the Netherlands is home to over
of Transportation Engineers (ITE) report Designing Walkable Ur-
7,000 Woonerfs, and both Germany and the United Kingdom
ban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach and other
are actively pursuing more Home Zones throughout their coun-
Complete Streets-specific manuals developed throughout the
tries. The benefits seen by countries that continue to employ
country. For instance, Sacramento, a Top 10 Peer City, has
this strategy include:
developed a Complete Streets-specific best practices manual. The ITE report is recognized by the National Compete Streets
» Reduced driving speeds and traffic volume
Coalition as advancing “the successful integration of land use
» Increased safety, public health, neighborhood aesthetics,
22
Woonerf in the Netherlands Courtesy: pedbikeimages.org
Home Zone in Barcelona, Spain Courtesy: pedbikeimages.org
Tempo 30 Zone in Germany Courtesy: flickr.com/photos/brtngrr/
Home Zone in Portland, OR Courtesy: pedbikeimages.org
and social activity » Increased property desirability
is roughly equivalent to 20 mph), and can simply be marked with slow speed signs, with little to no roadway alteration. Popularity and effectiveness of the initiative has led to widespread use of
» Encouragement for nonmotorized traffic as a transportation mode
Tempo 30 Zones and in 1989, the local practices were signed
» Enhanced mobility for vulnerable groups.
most German cities and towns, and eighty percent of the streets
into federal law. Low speed roads are now seen throughout in Bonn, a city of 310,000, are categorized as Tempo 30 Zones.
According to the report, Home Zones abroad are characterized as shared space between pedestrians, bicyclists, vehicles, and children at play. Traffic speeds can be as slow as “walking speed” (3 mph) to 10 mph and 20 mph. Design elements
Open Streets (information taken from Open Streets Guide)
are introduced, such as bottlenecks, no curbing, no division of street and sidewalk, road humps, changed street surfaces, and grouped parking layouts to offset loss of on-street parking.
The simple concept of Open Streets dates to the 1960’s, when Seattle instituted “Seattle Bicycle Sundays” along a 3-mile length of Lake Washington Boulevard. (Street Plans Collab-
Alterations to existing streets can range from costly to relatively
orative and Alliance for Biking and Walking and Open Plans,
minor, depending on length of project and materials used. In
2012). For one day a week, bicyclists rode and pedestrians
Germany, Home Zones are known Tempo 30 Zones (30 km/hr.
strolled unburdened along the car-free roadway. Since then, 23
ferences that may not otherwise take place. Streets are seen as commonplaces to gather, share, socialize, build social capital and sense of community, and develop capacity for making streets a more important component of everyday life. By encouraging more foot traffic, Open Streets located in downtown or neighborhood business districts often produce economic benefits to businesses along the route. Businesses are exposed to a different group who will use the Open Street, but may not otherwise drive the street. Additionally, performers, 2nd Sunday in Lexington, KY Courtesy: 2nd Sunday Kentucky
food carts, and other street vendors can populate the route and provide more business opportunities. A 2009 economic study looked at the cost per user, per week of different physical activity programs. Five Open Street were included, and costs ranged from $0.10 (Bogota’s Ciclovia) to $1.36 (San Francisco’s Sunday Streets). For sake of comparison, gym memberships were also included, and those costs ranged from $8.04 (Bogata) to $20.31 (San Francisco). This study demonstrates the cost-effectiveness of Open Streets as a source of exercise. The benefits that Open Streets have on public health are ap-
Open Street on State Street in Chicago, IL Courtesy: Steven Vance
parent. Participants are engaged in diverse forms of physical activity because a unique, convenient, fun, and free option to
the movement has grown to 70 initiatives in North America, the vast majority of which have been started since 2007, many of those on a trial basis.
do so has been provided. Studies indicate that Bogota’s Ciclovia participants spend on average over 4 hours exercising in the city’s streets and parks compared to 48 minutes of exercise that those choosing to exercise would undertake. Taken one
An Open Street is a temporary conversion of a roadway to ex-
step further, increased exercise can lead to improved health
clude automobile traffic in favor of walking, jogging, bicycling,
and lower private and public health care costs.
and other social activities. Closing the street is partly symbolic, demonstrating that a city places a high value on physical activity and public health, but by designating Open Streets, a city also recognizes the many community, social, economic, and environmental benefits that can come about through such a simple concept. Socially, an Open Street fundamentally alters the relationship a resident has with his or her city or community. By temporarily eliminating cars along a multi-mile stretch of urban thoroughfare, bicyclists, joggers, and pedestrians are able to uniquely engage the city. In this community-building experience, participants see
The cost to provide a route can vary greatly by city, by route type, and route length. Costs are typically related to providing police presence along the route. According to the report, most cities are providing Open Streets through a mix of funding, including public sources, private donations, and grants. Open Streets can be categorized by lead organizing entity, funding type, route type, route setting, route length, season, frequency, and by supporting activities. The report chronicled 67 initiatives in North American and analyzed each based on category. That analysis is summarized below.
aspects of their city that aren’t as noticeable by automobile, and they better understand its cultural identity and underlying urban fabric. Often, a degree of social interaction occurs across a range of socioeconomic, age, religious, and occupational dif24
Lead Organizing Entity » Public (approximately 45%)
» Non-Profit (approximately 31%)
» Exercise (Zumba, spinning, yoga, tai chi) classes
» Partnership (approximately 24%) Season Funding Type » Public (approximately 25%) » Private (approximately 22%) » Public-Private Partnership (approximately 53%)
Route Type (note that some routes have multiple classifications)
» Winter (6 out of 67, including two cold climate locales: New York City and Fargo, ND) » Spring (28 out of 67, including a number of cold climate locales) » Summer (51 out of 67) » Fall (23 out of 67, including a number of cold climate locales)
» Loop (14 out of 67) » Arm & Loop (16 out of 67)
Frequency
» Neighborhood Linear (33 out of 67)
» Daily (approximately 1%)
» Multi-Neighborhood Linear (11 out of 67)
» Weekly (approximately 16%)
» Regional Linear (6 out of 67)
» Monthly (approximately 9%) » Bi-Monthly (approximately 1%)
Route Setting (note that some routes have multiple classifications)
» Semi-Annual (approximately 3%)
» Park (30 out of 67) » Annual (approximately 22%) » Parkway (12 out of 67) » Varies (approximately 13%) » Residential Neighborhood (27 out of 67) » Irregular (approximately 19%) » Neighborhood Center (21 out of 67) » Inactive (approximately 3%) » Downtown (32 out of 67)
Route Length
Cleveland’s Open Streets initiative, dubbed Walk + Roll, widely serves as a model for other cities. Begun in 2006, the model is
» Ranges from less than one-half mile to over 50 miles.
non-profit led/privately funded, and was one of the first in North
» Most appear in the less than 1 mile to 4 mile range.
America to incorporate numerous supporting activities. Those activities are aligned with the primary goal of physical activity,
Supporting Activities (73% include; examples listed below)
but also promote community and neighborhood organizations.
» Picnics
Each initiative costs approximately $15,000 and has historically
» Martial arts
been provided through donations from local healthcare organizations, foundations, businesses, civic groups, and numerous
» Live music
other types of funders. Routes are designed with neighbor-
» Parades
hoods in mind, connecting to parks, share-use paths, business
» Farmers’ markets
districts, attractions, and regional transit. At its height in 2010, Walk+ Roll included six routes through different neighborhoods,
» Hula-hooping
each route approximately 3 miles in length. The streets were
» Disc golf
open weekly in select months. Farmers’ markets, neighbor-
» Basketball
hood organizations, block parties, and community develop-
» Roller skating » Dance/performance areas
ment corporations participated in each of the six neighborhood routes. Unfortunately, the program’s primary champion relocated to Portland, OR in 2011 and the program has since been 25
scaled back. This suggests that strong leadership may involve
the program also aims to address rising obesity, diabetes, and
partnerships to help sustain efforts with personnel changes.
asthma rates by increasing the opportunity for physical activity. According to the primer, easy access to open space is shown
Other cities enjoy robust participation as well. In 2001, Seattle
to produce a 25% increase in the number of people who exer-
averaged 3,200 participants in their Bicycle Sunday, a weekly
cise three or more times a week.
Open Street during the summer. San Francisco’s monthly Sunday Stroll boasts 15,000-20,000 participants per event, and
In 2010, two New York City Play Streets were coordinated with
businesses along the route report larger volumes than days
Harvest Home Farmer’s Market to provide over 1,200 partici-
without the Open Street. In 2010, Portland’s monthly Sun-
pants with safe, car-free spaces to play; where children “were
day Parkways initiative attracted 91,000 participants over five
encouraged to run, jump, learn new sports, eat fresh and local
months. Based on the huge success of 2010, Portland bud-
food, and engage with neighbors.” Surveys found that 64 per-
geted $482,500 for all five 2011 events.
cent of participants would have engaged in sedentary activity if not for the Play Street. Of those who attended, 71 percent
Research conducted by Washington University found that St.
walked to the Play Street, which produced an additional health
Louis’s Open Streets indicated that 43 percent of respondents
benefit, and 82 percent said that it was either “very important”
would not have engaged in physical activity that day had they
or “important” to have a Play Street near their home. A large
not participated in Open Streets, and that 73 percent of respon-
percentage of participants, 84 percent, reported that they felt
dents spent money at a restaurant or business along the route,
the neighborhood was safer with a Play Street, and 11 percent
and that 68 percent became aware of a new business along
learned about it while attending the Harvest Home Farmer’s
the route. A full 100 percent of respondents agree that Open
Market on the same street. Reclaiming streets as play spaces
Streets strengthen their community and 94 percent indicated
within neighborhoods is a targeted, low-investment strategy.
that Open Streets positively changed their feelings about St.
According to a follow up report, Play Streets and Farmers’
Louis.
Markets are “natural allies in efforts to increase opportunities for community residents to engage in nutritional, physical, and
Open Streets are an innovative approach to increasing physical
educational activities in public places.” (The New York Acadamy
activity for thousands of residents, at a relatively minor cost and
of Medicine’s Center for Evaluation, 2010). That report recom-
without alterations to the physical design of the street. Almost
mended additional future collaborations
20 percent of the 70 documented initiatives occur in communities throughout the Midwest, though none have been started in
Play street schedules can vary from recurring once a year, to re-
Indiana.
curring on a designated day for a designated number of weeks, to recurring every day for a designated number of months. The key to generating interest and participation is to develop a con-
Play Streets information taken from Play Streets: Best Practices
sistent schedule that becomes familiar to neighbor. Though all types of groups (neighborhood groups, community organizations, schools, and city agencies) can apply for official designa-
Begun in 1914 as an initiative to provide children with safe, convenient places to play, New York City promotes an ongoing program called Play Streets that aims to increase physical activity in urban neighborhoods. The primer Play Streets: Best Practices (Transportation Alternatives, 2012), describes Play Streets as residential streets that are repurposed, on a regular schedule,
tion of a Play Street, success is dependent on the capacity to build community awareness and interest. When choosing a street to designate, the following guidelines should be considered to increase the probability of success and participation: » Locate Play Streets in areas that already receive heavy pedestrian foot traffic.
as safe play and social interaction spaces. The goal of this program is to provide car-free play opportunities in residential areas that may lack adequate outdoor facilities. In doing so, 26
» Consider locations near local landmarks, community centers, community gardens, farmers’ markets, and retail districts.
Scenes from Play Streets in New York City Courtesy: Play Streets Best Practices
» Locate Play Streets near popular parks, particularly those that are too small to accommodate local residents. » On hot summer days, it is important to have overhead shade. Selection of street should take into consideration the presence of mature shade trees.
» *Rugby » *Dancing/Singing
» Plan for access to bathrooms and drinking fountains.
» *Jump Rope
» Avoid arterials or major collectors as they are not candidates for closure.
» *Hula Hoop
» Incorporate organized activities and farmers’ markets. When combined with organized activities and farmers’ markets, Play Streets can contribute to the local economy.
» *Soccer » Yoga » Hopscotch » Montefiore Throwing Zone » Boot Camp
In the New York Academy evaluation report, a diverse range physical activity was observed for children under 10 years old. Some of activities were programmed, others spontaneous. Ac-
» Karate » Double Dutch
tivities included: Creative/educational activities included: » *Relay Races
» *Drawing with chalk 27
» *Dance Performances
emerging solutions that require less up-front investment.
» Nutrition workshops » Arts workshops
Mayor Ballard has previously stated his support for neighborhood self-sufficiency, noting that “if a neighborhood wants to
» Communities diabetes center
create an EID (economic improvement district) to fund the in-
» Socializing/talking
stallation of an urban garden, create a special memorial, com-
» Recycling workshop
plete façade work, or repair sidewalks, that is a decision the
(*) Denotes greater than 10% participation in each activity.
neighborhood can make locally. My office will be happy to work with them and continue to make RebuildIndy improvements in neighborhoods across Marion County.” The underlying thought
Play Streets do require administrative and policing resources; particularly related to approvals, physical closure of the street, and parking/traffic enforcement. These costs are relatively minor considering the wide reach and multiple benefits of initia-
in this statement is that neighborhoods have the capacity to make improvements from within. In fact, as is the case with many initiatives, strong and local leadership and support is critical for success.
tives. The New York City model is adaptable to other cities. The following practices are profiled in the publication Tactical Urbanism: Short-Term Action, Long-Term Change, Volume
Neighborhood Revitalization Initiatives
2 (Lydon, 2012). This report catalogues 24 emerging tactics
Falling revenues have tightened budgets of federal, state, and
that seek to improve the livability of cities at the neighborhood
local agencies traditionally tasked with providing infrastruc-
or block level through grassroots efforts. The tactics are ex-
ture. Cuts have affected departments across-the-board, and
perimental in nature and are based around short-term commit-
planned projects have indefinitely been shelved. As a result,
ments, realistic expectations, low-risk/high reward potential,
communities have shifted resources away from roads, trails, and
and community building through participation from citizens,
parks, and toward essentials, like education and public safety.
public/private institutions, and non-profit governmental organi-
To lessen the impact, communities have increasingly sought
zations. They seek address the effects of the “new economy”
public-private partnerships to fill gaps. Some cities, such as
on small businesses and public health trough a bottom-up phi-
Indianapolis, have sold public utilities and even naming rights
losophy that can have positive and lasting effects on neighbor-
for essential services like snow removal. The state of Indiana
hoods. Though these tactics do not claim to improve health as
has sold rights to maintain and operate toll roads, and the Indi-
a primary objective, they do claim to build community a support
ana Department of Transportation (INDOT) is actively pursuing
the development of a strong local economy, which all lead to
relinquishment – the transfer of highways to cities – throughout
healthier neighborhoods.
the state. These examples demonstrate governments’ need to lessen long-term commitments, and are willing to do so in exchange for payouts that are then used to fund more immedi-
Build a Better Block
ate priorities and projects. This transfer of responsibility model
Begun in the Oak Cliff neighborhood in Dallas, TX, this tactic
does not appear to be a trend as much as a long-term shift in
attempts to transform underutilized urban blocks by encourag-
governmental operations.
ing local residents and groups to temporarily activate public space and vacant storefronts. In the Oak Cliff example, a $500
Consequently, any discussion about improving our built envi-
temporary streetscape was created to create a more walkable
ronment to promote a healthier diet and increased levels physi-
street and food vendors and sidewalk café tables helped to
cal activity would be irresponsible to not acknowledge the eco-
populate the street. In December 2011, a city of Dallas TIF
nomic realities facing our cities, states, and nation as a whole.
board dedicated $1Million to improvements, including bicycle
To simply advocate for more sidewalks, parks, and trails is to
infrastructure, a pedestrian plaza, and traffic calming elements
ignore the “new economy”. Solutions must go beyond the calls
around the King’s Highway area of North Oak Cliff, several of
for more traditional infrastructure and include innovative and
which were direct recommendations from the April of 2010 Bet-
28
Before transformation.
After transformation.
Scenes from a second Better Block project in Oak Cliff, in the 1300 Block of West Davis Street. Courtesy: Better Block.
ter Block project (Better Block, 2012). Since the first project in
of the event, bike lanes were made permanent within months
Oak Cliff, 24 other cities have completed similar initiatives, in-
and reinvestment has begun to take hold within the corridor
cluding Fort Worth, St. Louis, Denver, Wichita, Cleveland, Okla-
(Better Block, 2012).
homa City, Philadelphia, and Memphis. Notes Better Block: “A byproduct that we had not anticipated Build a Better Block is an example of how a locally-driven, low-
from our Better Block projects early on was the potential for our
risk/high reward strategy can lead to participation and eventual
pop-up businesses to become permanent. We’ve now seen, in
change. This exemplary tool can provide residents, business
most every instance and city that has adopted a Better Block,
owners, and local leaders with real-life, real-time visualizations
small businesses continue well after the project was completed”
of walkable environments, all with modest investment and effort.
(Better Block, 2011).
Though the heart of this tactic promotes reuse of underutilized urban blocks, the long-term resultant investment can improve
As of April 2011, Better Block reported that the first two Better
public health by permanently creating walkable environments.
Blocks in Dallas have resulted in two permanent businesses
This tactic deserves consideration in the depressed retail/com-
that began as pop-ups. “We had always wanted to start an
mercial districts of urban neighborhoods.
art studio, but we did not know if the area could support one” says Oil and Cotton co-owner Shannon Driscoll. Due to the
After the success of early Build a Better Block projects in Texas,
test market provided by The Better Block the business is now
community leaders in Memphis, Tennessee began their own
thriving and expanding to a neighboring space. A second new
block revitalization for Broad Street. The Mayor and city council
business, WIGWAM! Began as a Better Block Pop-Up Shop
were active in the process and the project, “A New Face for an
(Better Block, 201).
Old Broad” brought out 13,000 people. Based on the success 29
Before transformation.
After transformation. Oklahoma City’s Better Block Project at NW 7th & Hudson Courtesy: Better Block.
Writes Patrick Kennedy of D Magazine, “The Better Block Project represents a community-based remedy. Its beauty lies not in rebellious artistic expression but rather in its economic benefits. Cliff Notes, the Oak Cliff bookstore, reported its best day ever during a Better Block Project. Similarly, Panther City Bicycles on Magnolia Avenue in Fort Worth said its sales rose 80 percent. Where people gather and create a good vibe, investment will
Pop-Up Retail Similar to Build A Better Block, Pop-Up Retail encourages temporary use of vacant lands and retail space. In its infancy, efforts were short bursts used to market, evaluate, and create buzz around a new product. With early successes, longer-term initiatives have activated vacant store fronts, oversized parking lots, and underutilized public spaces. This community revitalization tactic is seen in a three-block stretch in Oakland, CA called Pop-uphood, where short-term leases foster business incubation and downtown revitalization. Small, locally-based businesses can be key to revitalizing and creating opportunity for prosperity in our urban neighborhoods. This tactic can encourage local entrepreneurs to pursue their business ideas by offering flexibility in physical space without a significant capital commitment. The benefit to a property owner is income generated from short-term leases on property
A pop-up shop at Oklahoma’s City’s Better Block project. Courtesy: Better Block.
that would otherwise sit vacant. Successful businesses may choose to permanently operate at the same location and enter
momentum. Indirectly, community and neighborhood revitaliza-
long-term leases. Coordinated efforts over several blocks can
tion can positively impact health by increasing economic invest-
create additional synergies and build larger-scale neighborhood
ment and opportunity.
30
Conclusions In the continuum of built environment strategies that can increase physical activity, Complete Streets design principles offer solutions that fall within the norm of current, leading roadway design practice. Strong Complete Streets implementation based on best practices should be a minimum threshold for roadway projects that are currently being planned in the City. This change toward prioritizing multimodal facilities will support goals for increasing physical activity, and ultimately improving residents’ health and the City’s performance in the AFI.
Build A Block and Pop Up Retail tactics are indirectly tied to increasing physical activity, but by promoting changes to local districts in the form of neighborhood revitalization, they fundamentally alter the economic and social health of the community. As temporary, low-cost, low-risk, high-reward, and highvisibility efforts, these fun and creative attempts at DIY urbanism can lead to permanent and lasting change, not just for streets, but for businesses and residents as well. Revitalized neighborhoods are critical to the City’s future and go to the heart of Mayor’s Ballard’s goal of making Indianapolis “the type of city where families want to live, businesses want to create jobs and
The design standards developed to implement Complete
neighborhoods can thrive“
Streets in Indianapolis should consider inclusion of more elaborate Home Zones/Woonerfs/Tempo 30 Zones. Elaborate Home offer clear and comprehensive steps to reversing the mode priority. Along particularly narrow, dense, mixed use urban streets, Home Zones are worthy of consideration for their aim to slow traffic and increase social activity.
Taken together, there are many tools available to us in our mission to increase physical activity in our neighborhoods. Based upon neighborhood need and interest, any and all should be considered.
Funding for permanent solutions will likely be
sourced through RebuildIndy, though EIDs are an alternative that can help to push projects ahead. Strong neighborhood groups
In areas where construction is not planned, other tools can be used to create more walkable and active neighborhoods. Sim-
and community organizations are the hallmark of this City, and they are critical partners in advocating for these changes.
ple strategies, such as signing a Home Zone with no roadway alterations, are simple, low-cost strategies that encourage use of the space for play and increased physical activity. Since this
Next Steps
is a new concept, it is suggested that a typical, urban residential
In the next phase of this study, an analysis of an underserved
street be selected for a short-term trial. Based upon evaluation
area will be conducted to determine greatest needs.
of the trial, the program could be expanded if proven successful.
It is currently thought that the analysis will identify neighborhood demographics, population density, degree of street connec-
When permanent solutions are not economically practical, or
tivity, street classification, posted travel speeds, transit routes
where local jurisdiction may be unwilling to permanently desig-
and stops, presence of on-street parking, existing traffic calm-
nate a street as a Home Zone, temporary tactics can be em-
ing measures, intersection character, presence and location of
ployed to increase physical activity. Both Open Streets and
sidewalks, tree cover, retail/commercial districts, school loca-
Play Streets are proven to achieve this goal, and other social,
tions, civic institutions, neighborhood destinations, parks, trails,
economic, and environmental goals. These grassroots initia-
and vacant lots.
tives can have lasting effects on neighborhoods and cities as a whole by generating impressive participation. Since these pro-
Proposed strategies for addressing those needs will be based
grams are usually led by neighborhood groups, capital invest-
upon those identified herein and a comprehensive plan locating
ment for operational costs is more likely to come from the com-
a mix of permanent/temporary/built/unbuilt interventions will be
munity than from the City. Play Streets could be designated
proposed.
throughout the City during summer months, and one or more recurring Open Streets could be routed through downtown or along major retail corridors, such as Massachusetts Avenue.
Finally, a set of design principles will be developed to accompany strategies.
31
32
References
Alan M. Voorhees Transportation Center, New Jersey Bicycle and Pedestrian Resource Center, Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy. (2004). Home Zone Concepts and New Jersey. New Jersey Department of Transportation. American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on Environmental Health. (2009). The Built Environment: Designing Communities to Promote Physical Activity in Children. Pediatrics, 123(6), 1591-1598. Ballard, G. (2011, September 29). Q & A with Mayoral Candidate Greg Ballard. (U. Indy, Interviewer) Urban Indy. Better Block. (201, April 1). Better Block Pop-Up Shops Go Perm. Retrieved June 10, 2012, from Better Block: http://betterblock. org/?p=243 Better Block. (2011, June 10). Dallas City Hall Becoming Ground Zero for Business Incubation. Retrieved June 10, 2012, from Better Block: http://betterblock.org/?p=411 Better Block. (2012, January 8). A Look Back at the Highlights from the Past Year. Retrieved June 10, 2012 , from Better Block: http://betterblock.org/?p=625 Chamness, B. E., Zollinger, T. W., Thompson, W. R., Ainsworth, B. E., Lewis, C. K., & Weathers, T. D. (2012). American Fitness Index. Indianapolis: American College of Sports Medicine. City of Indianapolis. (2012). RebuildIndy. Retrieved June 10, 2012, from http://www.indy.gov/eGov/City/DPW/RebuildIndy/Pages/ RebuildIndyHome.aspx City of Indianapolis. (n.d.). Bikeways. Retrieved June 3, 2012, from SustainIndy: http://www.indy.gov/eGov/City/DPW/SustainIndy/ Bikeways/Pages/BikewaysHome.aspx City of Sacramento Parks and Recreation Department. (2009, April 21). Assessment. Retrieved June 10, 2012, from City of Sacramento Parks and Recreation Master Plan 2005-2010 Technical Update: http://www.cityofsacramento.org/parksandrecreation/ masterplan/pdf/mp2-d-assess.pdf Denver Parks and Recreation. (2003). A Citywide System of Play. Retrieved June 10, 2012, from http://www.denvergov.org/Portals/626/documents/chapter%203_part1.pdf Ewing, R., Meakings, G., Bjarnson, G., & Hilton, H. (2011). Transportation and Land Use. In A. Dannenberg, H. Frumkin, & R. Jackson, Making Healthy Places: Designing and Building for Health, Well-being, and Sustainability (pp. 149-169). Washington DC: 33
Island Press. Fischer, E. L., Rousseau, G. K., Turner, S. M., Blais, E. J., Engelhart, C. L., Henderson, D. R., et al. (Februay 2010). Pedestrian and Bicyclist Safety and Mobility in Europe. Office of International Programs, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, American Assoication of State Highway and Transportation Officials, American Trade Initiatives. Washington DC: Federal Highway Administration. Greg Ballard for Mayor. (n.d.). Moving Indianapolis Forward. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from http://mayorgregballard.com/MovingIndianapolisForward.pdf Indy Parks and Recreation. (2009). 2009-2014 Indianapolis-Marion County Park, Recreation & Open Space Plan. Indianapolis: Indy Parks and Recreation. Institute of Transportation Engineers. (2010). Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach. Washington DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers. Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc. (2012). Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc. Retrieved June 11, 2012, from Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc.: http://www.kibi.org/ Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc. (n.d.). Pocket Parks. Retrieved June 3, 2012, from Keep Indianapolis Beautiful, Inc.: http://www. kibi.org/pocket_parks Kliff, S. (2012, June 8). Will Philadelphia’s experiment in eradicating ‘food deserts’ work? Retrieved June 8, 2012, from Washington Post: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/will-philadelphias-experiment-in-eradicating-food-desertswork/2012/06/08/gJQAU9snNV_blog.html Kohan, E. G. (2012, April 18). The Blog of Record About White House Food Initiatives. Retrieved June 7, 2012, from Obama Foodorama: http://obamafoodorama.blogspot.com/2012/04/new-york-times-on-first-lady-food.html Lydon, M. (2012). Tactical Urbanism: Short-Term Action, Long-Term Change, Volume 2. Meter, K. (2012). Hoosier Farmer? Emergent Food Systems in Indiana. Crossroads Resource Center. Indianapolis, IN: Indiana State Department of Health. Murray, J. (2012, May 23). Indianapolis parks not a priority, study says. Indianapolis Star. National Complete Streets Coalition. (2010). Complete Streets Policy Analysis 2010: A Story of Growing Strength. Washington, DC: National Complete Streets Coalition. National Complete Streets Coalition. (n.d.). Complete Streets Atlas. Retrieved June 5, 2012, from National Complete Streets Coalition: http://www.completestreets.org/complete-streets-fundamentals/complete-streets-atlas/ National Complete Streets Coalition. (n.d.). Fundamentals. Retrieved June 3, 2012, from Complete Streets: http://www.completestreets.org/complete-streets-fundamentals/ National Complete Streets Coalition. (n.d.). Policy Elements. Retrieved June 5, 2012, from National Complete Streets Coalition: http://www.completestreets.org/changing-policy/policy-elements/ National Complete Streets Coalition. (n.d.). Resources. Retrieved June 10, 2012, from National Complete Streets Coalition: http:// www.completestreets.org/complete-streets-fundamentals/resources/ Omni Parkwest Redevelopment Association. (2012). A Community Recreation Area in the Heart of Downtown Miami. Retrieved June 34
4, 2012, from Grand Central Park: http://grandcentralpark.org/gcparkmiami/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id= 88&Itemid=110 Pinellas County. (2012). Penny for Pinellas. Retrieved June 11, 2012, from Pinellas County: http://www.pinellascounty.org/penny/ default.htm Portland Parks & Recreation. (n.d.). Portland Parks & Recreation Sample Level Of Service. Retrieved June 10, 2012, from http:// www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.cfm?a=394819&c=54416 Portland Parks and Recreation Department. (2009). Parks 2020 Vision: Progress Report 2009. Retrieved June 10, 2012, from http://www.portlandonline.com/parks/index.cfm?a=259513&c=38306 Reports, S. a. (2012, June 5). Council OKs Funding for Redistricting. Indianapolis Star, p. B2. Sheridan Group. (2010). Play Matters: A Sudy of Best Practices to Inform Local Policy and Process in Support of Children’s Play. KaBOOM! Street Plans Collaborative and Alliance for Biking and Walking and Open Plans. (2012). Open Streets Guide. Tan, C. H. (2011, September/October). Going on a Road Diet. Public Roads, 75(2). The New York Acadamy of Medicine’s Center for Evaluation. (2010). Evaluation of the Harvest Home Play Street: Summer 2010. New York: The New York Acadamy of Medicine. Transportation Alternatives. (2012). Play Streets: Best Practices. Trust for Public Land. (2010). City Population Density. Retrieved June 8, 2012, from Trust for Public Land: http://cityparksurvey.tpl. org/reports/report_display.asp?rid=30 YMCA. (2012, May 23). Indianapolis Pledges to Become a Top 10 Healthiest City by 2025. Retrieved June 7, 2012, from YMCA: http://www.indymca.org/blog/2012/05/23/ymca/indianapolis-pledges-to-become-a-top-10-healthiest-city-by-2025/
35
36
Appendix
Walkable Urban Thoroughfares In 2010, the Institute of Transportation Engineers prepared a report, “Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares: A Context Sensitive Approach” (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2010). The report, sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), is in response to increased interest in for “improving both mobility choices and community character through a commitment to correlating and enhancing walkable communities” and applies to the design of urban thoroughfares designated as arterials or collectors. Though the recommendations in this report may not apply to all thoroughfares in all contexts, they do apply to thoroughfares in the urban core. The intent of the report is to “illustrate how AASHTO guidance can be applied to roadway improvement projects to make them more compatible with community objectives and context in urban areas.” The report is endorsed by the National Complete Streets Coalition as advancing “the successful integration of land use consideration and multi-modal streets to create walkable communities.” (National Complete Streets Coalition). Designing Walkable Urban Thoroughfares focuses on the following types of roads: boulevard, avenue, and street, though in the urban context, other street types are also present, including freeways, expressways, local streets and alleys. In each type of urban thoroughfare, the guidelines recommend provisions for transit service and facilities for bicycles and pedestrian as design characteristics. The report outlines a step-by-step approach for determining walkable urban thoroughfare cross-sections. In urban areas that tend to be more constrained, ideal cross sections are not always possible, so the report describes trade-off scenarios in determining thoroughfare cross-section. In those instances, the goal is to strike a balance between traditional approaches and urban, walkable approaches. In the urban context, key guidelines that differ from traditional approaches include: » Block Widths: limit to 200-600 feet. » Travel Speeds: 25-35 mph target speeds, depending on thoroughfare type. » Through Lanes: limit to 6 for boulevards, 4 for avenues, and 2 for streets. »
In determining the number of travel lanes, consider community objectives, thoroughfare type, long-range transportation plans and the capacity of parallel routes to accommodate travel demand.
»
If a network evaluation determines that capacity exists to accommodate network traffic demands, consider reducing the number of travel lanes to accommodate other desired design elements.
»
The number of turn lanes at critical intersections “may require evaluation of trade-offs between vehicular capacity, level of service, pedestrian crossing distance and exposure to traffic.” 37
»
Avoid wide (>60’) streets, as they result in pedestrian barriers, higher vehicular speeds, and reduced economic and community activity.
»
Lane widths for arterials: 10 to 12 feet (≤35 mph), 10 to 11 feet (≤30 mph).
»
Lane widths for collectors: 10 to 11 feet (≤35 mph), 10 feet (≤30 mph).
»
Avoid maximum-width travel lanes if not warranted.
» On-Street Parking: include for economic benefits, traffic calming, safer pedestrian crossings, and on-street loading zones. »
Prohibit on streets where travel speeds are >35 mph.
»
Recommended parallel parking lanes: 8 feet (commercial), 7 feet (residential).
»
Only consider angled parking on low-volume, low-speed avenues and streets in commercial main street areas, where sufficient curb-to-curb width.
»
Back-in angled parking overcomes sight distance concerns of front-facing angled parking.
»
At parallel parking areas, provide a minimum of 1.5 feet wide offset between the face of curb and the edge of potential obstructions.
»
Where there is on-street parking, crossings should be shortened by curb extensions.
» Intersections: driver expectations need to shift toward taking turns with other modes of transportation and a sense of uncertainty, which creates a slower, vigilant, and safer environment. »
Minimize conflicts between transportation modes and accommodate all modes with appropriate levels of serve.
»
If large vehicles encroachment into opposing lanes is necessary, place stop lines for opposing traffic further from the intersection.
»
Avoid channelized right turns in areas of significant pedestrian activity.
»
Avoid elimination of travel modes due to intersection design.
»
Use speed tables if needed to reduce speeds through intersections.
»
Design for U-turn movements for better access to property when adding raised medians.
»
Provide pedestrian refuge islands at complex intersections.
»
Signalized Intersections: give priority to pedestrians and recommendations include pedestrian signals and countdown heads, adequate crossing times, shorter cycle lengths, and median refuges for very long crossings.
»
In urban centers and urban cores with high pedestrian activity, curb-return radii should be as small as possible.
»
Curb-return radii should be designed to accommodate the largest vehicle type that will frequently turn the corner. The occasional large vehicle can encroach into the opposing lane. If encroachment is not acceptable, alternative routes for large vehicles should be identified.
» Protected Pedestrian Crossing Frequency: provide at 200-600 feet frequency.
38
»
When traffic speeds (>40 mph), traffic volume (>12,000 ADT or >15,000 ADT on multilane streets with raised pedestrian refuge) and pedestrian crossing volume (>25 pedestrians/hour for at least four hours on a typical day) criteria are met, consider midblock crossings to facilitate greater pedestrian connectivity.
»
Consider midblock pedestrian crossings when protected intersections are spaced greater than 400 feet or so that crosswalks are no greater than 200 to 300 feet apart in high pedestrian volume locations.
»
Consider midblock crossings when significant pedestrian volumes are crossing to destinations such as major trip generators or transit stops.
»
Signalization is required where inadequate traffic gaps prevent safe crossing.
»
Provide raised median where crossing width is >60 feet.
»
Provide curb extensions with illumination and signing.
»
Provide “Z” configurations to encourage pedestrians to look for oncoming traffic.
»
Provide raised pavement to calm traffic speeds.
»
Consider refuge islands at unsignalized midblock and intersection crossings of a high-volume, four or more lane thoroughfares.
»
Provide islands with a minimum area of 120 square feet, and minimum dimensions of 6 feet wide (8 feet if part of a multi-use trail system) and 20 feet long.
»
Provide curbs to delineate refuge areas in median conditions.
» Signalized Intersections: give priority to pedestrians. »
Consider refuge islands at signalized crossings frequently used by the aged, schoolchildren, and persons with disabilities.
»
Provide short crossing distances and operational techniques to maximize separation of traffic and pedestrians.
»
Extend curbs into parallel parking lanes to improve pedestrian crossings at intersections, bus stops, and various midblock crossings.
» Unsignalized Intersections: provide pedestrian signals or high-visibility markings at 200-600 feet frequency. »
Extend curbs into parallel parking lanes to improve pedestrian crossings at intersections, bus stops, and various midblock crossings.
» Medians: 6 feet minimum width, require for boulevards and very long crossings. » Sidewalks: include on all thoroughfare types. »
width in commercial areas: 6 to 10 feet (varies with context and thoroughfare type)
»
width in residential areas: 6 to 10 feet (varies with context and thoroughfare type)
»
minimum width in constrained conditions: 6 feet (commercial), 5 feet (residential)
» Edge/Furnishing Zones: include as buffers between pedestrians and vehicular areas for all thoroughfare types. »
width in commercial areas: 6 to 7 feet (varies with context and thoroughfare type)
»
width in residential areas: 6 to 8 feet (varies with context and thoroughfare type)
»
minimum width in constrained conditions: 4 feet (commercial), 3 feet (residential)
» Bicycle Lanes: not required on every street, but consider on major thoroughfares with target speeds >30 mph and on streets with high traffic volumes and speeds <30 mph. »
Bicycle lanes adjacent to head-in or angled parking is discouraged.
»
Bicycle travel on sidewalks should be discouraged, even if the width meets the requirements of a shared-use path.
»
A bicycle lane width combined with an on-street parking lane is 13 feet recommended for all thoroughfare types.
»
A bicycle lane width combined without an on-street parking lane is 6 feet recommended, 5 feet minimum for all thoroughfare types.
» Roundabouts: increase vehicle capacity at the intersection, slow traffic, and reduce severity of collisions. They are not generally used to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety.
39
Though this report supports multimodal integration into urban contexts, it falls woefully short on recommendations for street trees for thoroughfares in walkable areas in constrained conditions, which could describe many urban downtowns in America. In these instances, the report suggests to “plant only small caliper trees (4” diameter when mature) in 4-foot treewells.” Studies have repeatedly shown that the presence of trees increases property values, retail sales, and pedestrian safety. Innovative tree planting techniques, such as treeways, suspended paving, and structural cells can allow pavements and trees to co-exist for many years in constrained areas.
Road Diets Road diets are retrofit applications of Complete Streets principles. They are relatively low-cost conversions of wide streets to narrow streets. The width gained from removing or narrowing travel lanes can be used for other features, such as parking, additional sidewalk width, or bike lanes. According to the ITE Urban Thoroughfare report, road diets have been shown to: » Reduce conflicts at intersections » Reduce accidents » Have minimal effects on traffic capacity (for thoroughfares under 20,000 vehicles per day) » Improve emergency response » Create opportunities for pedestrian refuge at crossings » Eliminate hazards of crossing four-lane roads » Allow for easier egress from driveways through improved sight distance » Result in smaller curb return radius
Additionally, FHWA’s Public Roads research publication (Tan, 2011) cites recent case studies to suggest broader benefits that road diets can have on traffic operations, safety, and livability. Though criteria for implementing road diets have yet to be formally adopted by FHWA or the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), some general rules of thumb have been proposed by advocates: traffic thresholds below 25,000 average daily traffic (ADT) is a starting point, as is the amount of left turns along a roadway. Even with these basic criteria, planning and implementation for road diets will vary greatly by community, based upon land use patterns and the degree of public acceptance. A common road diet application is to convert a four-lane roadway into a three-lane roadway by eliminating one travel lane in favor of a two-way left turn lane, but many other applications are possible. From Public Roads, below are additional examples
European Pedestrian Bicycle Safety and Mobility Practices Often, recommended best practices are based upon successes and case studies found elsewhere. These sources can be other cities, states or countries that are willing to experiment with emerging practices. Typically, monitoring and evaluation of the implemented practice will determine its wider application. In recognition of this, FHWA, AASHTO, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) sponsor the International Technology Scanning Program to evaluate foreign technologies and practices that could significantly benefit U.S. systems (Fischer, et al., Februay 2010). In 2009, a team visited Denmark, Germany, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom to learn more about their pedestrian and bicycling safety and mobility practices and how they might apply to practices in the United States. Their findings and conclusions identified numerous practices that should be considered in the United States to improve walking and biking safety and mobility. Beyond issuing a report with key findings, the scan team 40
has advocated for adopting Complete Streets policies. Countries visited indicated indirect benefits as reasons for promoting bicycling and walking, such as lower overall transportation delivery cost, sustainability, space and energy efficiency, and health and wellness. These benefits suggest the importance of thinking beyond transportation needs and toward broader public policy goals such as livability, sustainability, public health, climate change management, and congestion management when planning facilities. That philosophy is evident in the approach to urban street hierarchy, where highest priority is given to pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit and that typical street design begins by considering the space needs of pedestrians and bicyclists first. This principle guides transportation policy, planning, design, operations, and maintenance decisions. The report also acknowledges that a number of factors, beyond street design, help to explain the higher pedestrian and bicyclist mode splits and their increased safety. Moreover, the “safety in numbers” theory seems to apply, as increased numbers of pedestrians and bicyclists are recognized as common street environment element to motorists who expect their presence and take necessary precautions. But to get to that point, a deliberate combination of policies, approaches, and influences were necessary. These include: » Integration of transportation and land use policy » Transportation planning and design policies that are mode neutral or that give priority to vulnerable road users (like pedestrians and bicyclists) » Political support at all levels, including elected officials, government staff, and the general public » Provision and pricing of motor vehicle parking » The high costs of owning and operating a private motor vehicle (sales tax, annual registration fees, gas, parking, fines for moving violations, etc.) » A comprehensive, continuous, integrated approach that includes elements such: integration with and widespread availability of public transit, connected on-street and off-street walking and biking networks, ongoing promotional campaigns and activities, traffic safety education for children throughout their school years, visually rich, pedestrian-scale built environment, prohibition against right turn on red except where specifically permitted, routine photo enforcement, and numerous other policy and facility details that make walking and bicycling easy, convenient, and enjoyable
Following is a summary of various pedestrian and bicycling planning, design, and policy best practices identified by the report that are applicable to this study.
Pedestrian Safety » Near-side traffic signals that reduce motorist encroachment on the pedestrian crosswalk » Near-side pedestrian signal heads placed to encourage pedestrians to view oncoming traffic » Crossing islands, even if confined or limited space requires the use of smaller islands » Railing used to direct pedestrian movements to defined crossing locations » Accessible pedestrian signals with confirmation lighting » Partial crossings at wide signalized intersections with wide medians (additional push buttons and pedestrian signals will be required).
Bicyclist Safety 41
» Approaches to address right-turn crashes, such as advance stop lines for bicyclists, “Trixi” (heated convex) mirrors or other specialized motor vehicle-based mirrors, bike boxes (experimental in Cambridge, Columbus, Portland, New York, and San Francisco), leading green phase for bicyclists, and right-turn-on-red restrictions for motorists » Separated facilities, such as cycle tracks (shown in Copenhagen to increase bicyclist levels by 20 percent), separated bike lanes, and shared-use paths with delineated space for pedestrians and bicyclists » Bicycle-specific traffic signals to reduce turning conflicts at signalized intersections » Designated lanes at conflict points » Rotated or longitudinal bike symbols at driveways and stop-controlled cross streets (oriented to be seen by motorists turning across the bike lane) » Continuation of bike lanes up to intersection » Bike lanes between traffic lanes » Shared bike lanes and right turn lanes » Bike routes on lower volume parallel roadways » Contraflow bicycle lanes » Path user divisions » Dashed bike lanes through intersections (an experiment in Portland of one blue bike lane through an intersection showed significantly more motorists yielded to bicyclists and slowed or stopped before entering the blue pavement areas, more bicyclists followed the colored bike lane path, fewer bicyclists turned their head s to scan for traffic or used hand signals.) » Accommodating two-stage left turns at signalized intersections » Dashed bicycle lanes on narrow roadways » Railing separating pedestrians and bicycles at intersections » Reserving yellow for bicycle and pedestrian pavement markings
Low-Speed Street Design » Low-speed street designs in both residential and commercial areas » Bristol, England, has implemented 20 mile-per-hour “home zones” in its new residential development. » Several cities in Sweden, Germany, and Switzerland also have implemented low-speed streets 12.4 to 18.6 mph in both residential and commercial areas.
Walking/Bicycling/Transit Considerations » Close integration of bicycling and walking considerations with public transit to make longer intermodal commutes by bike practical, safer, and more convenient. » A variety of bike parking solutions at stations, including plentiful and convenient bike racks, covered outdoor parking, and secured indoor parking » Policies that permit bikes on trains and buses, even during peak times » Bike rental or sharing programs located in or near train or bus stations » Channels or ramps on stairways that make it easier to use steps while pushing a bike
42
Multi-Modal Education » Pervasive and widespread traffic safety education programs for children starting at an early age. » Participation from a wide variety of organizations, including schools, businesses, civic organizations, police, public health groups, and parks and recreation departments. » “Children’s Traffic Club” program providing ongoing, age-appropriate safety material to parents and children, as well as fun learning activities. » “Traffic Garden” – a landscaped, reduced-scale closed course that includes traffic signals, roundabouts, bike lanes at intersections, sidewalks, work zones, public benches, and other common traffic situations – used to teach elementary school-age children to ride bikes safely in traffic. » Bicycle helmet use is encouraged, but not required by law. » Emphasis on physical activity first and helmets second. Rationale is that required helmet use discourages bicycling (physical activity), which could have a greater public health detriment than head injuries due to crashes.
Enforcement » Use of photo enforcement for traffic signals and speed limits, resulting in improved motor vehicle safety, better motorist compliance with speed limits and traffic signals, and improved pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
Encouragement » Promotional programs and activities to encourage and enable more walking and biking. » Web-based biking and walking route planning and maps, including extensive countryside pathways inviting tourists and other occasional users » Shared bike programs for public agencies, private companies, or the general public » Free or very low-cost public-use bicycles »
Routine provision of quality bike racks at convenient locations
» Employer-sponsored programs (bike-to-work incentives) » Marketing campaigns to reduce or shift short car trips » Public health-sponsored wellness and physical activity programs » Personalized travel planning
Evaluation » Provide regular performance reports on pedestrian and bicyclist safety and mobility to measure progress toward stated goals and outcomes, and are used to refine policies and strategies to ensure that goals are met.
43