Streetscape Improvements

Enhancing Urban Roadway Design

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated 25 January 2010

This chapter discusses various ways to improve urban streetscapes to support more multi-modal transportation and create more attractive and accessible communities.

 

 

 

Description

Streetscape refers to urban roadway design and conditions as they impact street users and nearby residents. Streetscaping recognizes that streets are places where people engage in various activities, including but not limited to motor vehicle travel. Streetscapes are an important component of the public realm (public spaces where people interact), which help defines a community’s aesthetic quality, identity, economic activity, health, social cohesion and opportunity, not just its mobility.

 

Streetscaping (programs to improve streetscape conditions) can include changes to the road cross section, traffic management, sidewalk conditions, landscaping, street furniture (utility poles, benches, garbage cans, etc.), building fronts and materials specifications. It also involves improving signage (AIGA, 2005; Muhlhausen, 2005).

 

Streetscape can have a significant effect on how people perceive and interact with their community. If streetscapes are safe and inviting to pedestrians, people are more likely to walk which can help reduce automobile traffic, improve public health, stimulate local economic activity, and attract residents and visitors to a community.

 

Urban roadways have diverse functions. Streets accommodate automobile, public transit traffic, bicycle and pedestrian traffic; provide access to adjacent buildings and other destinations; provide space for commercial and recreational activities; and function as linear parks. Streetscaping therefore must account for various impacts and balance various planning objectives.

 

Streetscaping can help create more diverse transportation systems and more accessible communities by improving nonmotorized travel conditions, creating more attractive urban environments, and integrating special design features such as Pedestrian Improvements, Cycling Improvements, Traffic Calming, HOV Priority and Road Space Reallocation. Streetscaping is an important component of New Urbanism, Transit Oriented Development, and other efforts to redevelop urban areas. It often includes wider sidewalks, bicycle lanes, bus pullouts, and improved on-street parking design.

 

Figures 1 & 2             Streetscape Improvements, San Leandro, California     

Before improvements. (Courtesy of Greg Tung)

 

After streetscape improvements, which included fewer traffic lanes, building improvements, sidewalk improvements, street trees, and landscaping.

 

           

How It Is Implemented

Streetscaping is often implemented as part of urban redevelopment efforts (New Urbanism) and Road Diets, which are arterial Traffic Calming projects (Burden and Lagerway 1999; CTRE 2006; Rosales 2006). It may be initiated by governments (EC 2009) or citizens and community groups (PPS 2008a). Ernst and Shoup recommend policy and planning reforms that support Streetscaping.

 

Such projects may be implemented on a single block, along a street, or for an entire district. Streetscape improvements can often be integrated as part of other roadway maintenance and building construction projects. For example, a community can establish design standards or guidelines that will be applied as part of scheduled construction work. Some streetscaping can be implemented as part of special programs, such as a parks program to plan trees along a roadway, or pedestrian facility improvements.

 

Streetscape improvements can also be incorporated into subdivision and roadway design standards, for example, by encouraging or requiring shorter blocks, wider sidewalks, bikelanes, narrower streets, landscaping, and other features that improve Accessibility, Walkability and aesthetics.

 

Streetscaping may be initiated by a community visioning or planning process which established guidelines for streetscape design. Implementation may involve special published guidelines, plans and funding for streetscape improvements on a particular street or in an area.

 

 

Travel Impacts

Travel impacts vary depending on the type of streetscape improvements. By itself, streetscaping tends to have modest impacts, but its effects may be large if implemented as part of an overall program to improve alternative modes (Nonmotorized and Transit) and encourage more Compact, infill development. Shade trees and improved Security may also encourage more walking. Traffic Calming and Road Space Reallocation can reduce automobile traffic volumes and speeds. Streetscaping that improves urban environments can support Smart Growth, which can result in more Diverse transportation systems and Accessible land use patterns.

 

Table 1            Travel Impact Summary

Objective

Rating

Comments

Reduces total traffic.

1

Improves walking & cycling conditions, and supports more compact development.

Reduces peak period traffic.

1

 

Shifts peak to off-peak periods.

0

 

Shifts automobile travel to alternative modes.

2

 

Improves access, reduces the need for travel.

2

 

Increased ridesharing.

0

 

Increased public transit.

1

 

Increased cycling.

1

 

Increased walking.

2

 

Increased Telework.

0

 

Reduced freight traffic.

0

 

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

 

 

Benefits and Costs

Streetscape Improvements can provide a variety of economic, social and environmental benefits.

·         Improved Walking and Cycling conditions, and therefore increased nonmotorized travel.

·         Increased traffic safety due to narrower streets and slower traffic (Traffic Calming).

·         More compact, mixed, infill development (New Urbanism).

·         Improved Community Livability, interaction and cohesion.

·         Increased property values.

·         Improved transport and access for non-drivers, and support Universal Design.

·         Improved public Health due to increased walking and cycling.

 

 

Rosenblatt Naderi, Suk Kweon and Maghela (2008) found that tree-lined streets are perceived to be safer in urban and suburban locations, and have lower average traffic speeds in suburban locations. Streetscaping that reduces traffic speeds and improves pedestrian crossing conditions can significantly reduce collisions. Stout, et al (2006) found that conversion of four-lane undivided roadways to three-lane cross-sections in typical Iowa towns reduced crash frequency by 25% and crash injuries by 34%. The table below summarizes crash reductions found in various Seattle area locations.

 

Table 2            Road Diet Crash Reduction Impacts (Seattle DOT)

Roadway Location

Date Change

ATD Before

ADT After

Collision Reduction

Greenwood Ave N,

N 80th St to N 50th

April 1995

 

11,872

12,427

24 to 10 (58%)

 

N 45th Street,

Wallingford Area

December 1972

19,421

20,274

45 to 23 (49%)

 

8th Ave NW,

Ballard Area

January 1994

10,549

11,858

18 to 7 (61%)

 

Martin Luther King Jr Way, North of I 90

January 1994

12,336

13,161

15 to 6 (60%)

Dexter Ave N,

Queen Ann Area

June 1991

 

13,606

14,949

19 to 16 (59%)

 

24th Ave NW,

NW 85th to NW 65th

October 1995

9,727

9,754

14 to 10 (28%)

 

This table summaries the crash reduction effects of road diets on major arterials in Seattle, Washington. (ATD = Average Daily Traffic)

 

 

Costs include the additional expenses associated with more detailed planning, design and amenities (sidewalks, transit, public spaces), and extra development costs associated with construction within existing urban areas.

 

Table 3          Benefit Summary

Objective

Rating

Comments

Congestion Reduction

1

Improves walking & cycling conditions, and supports more compact development.

Road & Parking Savings

1

 

Consumer Savings

1

 

Transport Choice

2

 

Road Safety

2

Improves walking & cycling conditions and often includes traffic calming.

Environmental Protection

2

 

Efficient Land Use

2

 

Community Livability

3

 

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

 

 

Equity Impacts

Streetscape improvement equity impacts vary depending on specific design features and conditions. They tend to improve walking and cycling conditions, and incorporate Universal Design features, and therefore improve mobility for people who are transportation disadvantaged.

 

Table 4          Equity Summary

Criteria

Rating

Comments

Treats everybody equally.

0

 

Individuals bear the costs they impose.

0

 

Progressive with respect to income.

1

Improves walking and cycling, and therefore pubic transit transport.

Benefits transportation disadvantaged.

2

"

Improves basic mobility.

2

"

Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.

 

 

Applications

Streetscape improvements tend to be applied most in urban areas and downtown areas where there are many pedestrians. They are generally implemented by local governments and developers.

 

Table 5          Application Summary

Geographic

Rating

Organization

Rating

Large urban region.

2

Federal government.

1

High-density, urban.

3

State/provincial government.

1

Medium-density, urban/suburban.

2

Regional government.

2

Town.

2

Municipal/local government.

3

Low-density, rural.

1

Business Associations/TMA.

3

Commercial center.

3

Individual business.

3

Residential neighborhood.

2

Developer.

3

Resort/recreation area.

3

Neighborhood association.

3

College/university communities.

2

Campus.

2

Ratings range from 0 (not appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).

 

 

Category

Improves Transportation Options and Land Use

 

 

Relationships With Other TDM Strategies

Streetscape Improvements supports and is supported by other urban redevelopment strategies, including New Urbanism, Smart Growth, Transit-Oriented Development, Context Sensitive Design, Location-Efficient Development, Traffic Calming, Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements, Universal Design, Road Space Reallocation, and Parking Management. It is one of the most effective TDM strategies for improving Community Livability.

 

 

Stakeholders

Streetscape improvements are generally implemented by local governments and developers. Neighborhood associations, business associations and developers are also important stakeholders with regard to many specific New Urbanist policies and projects.

 

 

Barriers To Implementation

Existing zoning laws and development policies often discourage or prohibit Streetscape Improvements. There is sometimes local resistance to traffic calming and more compact development.

 

 

Best Practices

The report  Reclaiming City Streets For People: Chaos Or Quality Of Life? (EC 2009) provides guidelines for Road Space Reclaiming and Streetscaping.

 

·         Planning should involve stakeholders.

 

·         As much as possible, design every street to be a linear park, with wide sidewalks and other pedestrian amenities, landscaping, shade trees, street furniture, bike lanes, well-planned connections with public paths, attractive buildings, and other destinations.

 

·         Use quality materials for street surfaces and furniture.

 

·         Educate planners and developers about street design principles.

 

·         Encourage cooperation between public and private decision makers to improve streetscapes.

 

·         Foster “walkable” street designs.

 

 

Wit and Humor

A man is feeling terrible. He can’t digest food, suffers from chest pains, and can’t think straight. The first doctor he visits performs a quick examination, and recommends various vitamin and mineral supplements. But the symptoms persist.

 

He goes to a second doctor who takes a medical history, and performs a careful examination. This doctor shakes his head sadly. The problem, he explains, is a weak heart that requires immediate surgery. The man endures the operation, but even after the incision heals the original symptoms persist.

 

He goes to a third doctor, who takes a detailed medical history, does a careful examination, and performs a series of expensive and painful tests. After the results are available, the doctor sits down with the man and gravely explains, the problem is a deadly and inoperable brain tumor – death is imminent.

 

Sadly, the man prepares for his demise. He purchases a plot at the cemetery. He selects a casket at the mortuary. Then he goes to a tailor for a new suit in which to be buried. The tailor measures him carefully, and then says, “I’ll make the pants 42 inches, the coat 38 inches, and the shirt neck 16 inches.”

 

“But,” the man replies, “I always wear 38 inch pants, a 34 inch coat and a 15 inch shirt neck.

 

“No! No! If I make 38 inch pants, a 34 inch coat and a 15 inch shirt neck you won’t be able to digest food, your chest will hurt, and blood flow to your brain will be constricted,” explains the tailor.

 

 

Examples and Case Studies

 

Ayd Mill Corridor Linear Park (www.aydmill.org):

Community groups in the St. Paul area have developed a proposal to streetscape the Ayd Mill Corridor so it functions as a linear park. The estimated cost is $1-$2/foot for 8,000 feet for each lane of Ayd Mill or $16,000-$32,000. This includes the following components:

 

 

 

 

 

NCDOT New Subdivision Guidelines (www.dot.state.nc.us/news/TNDsubdivguidelines00-08.html)

The N.C. Board of Transportation today approved Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Street Design Guidelines that will improve safety by promoting low speeds and cautious driving while fully accommodating the needs of pedestrians and bicyclists.

 

"By approving these guidelines, our Board of Transportation is to be commended for making smart transportation planning a priority," said Gov. Hunt. "These guidelines will improve the quality of life for all North Carolinians by helping us build strong communities across the state."

 

The alternative guidelines were developed in response to increased interest in balancing growth and quality of life initiatives and to promote neighborhood development. They were created in consultation with citizens, developers, builders, architects, engineers, planners, local government officials, state agencies and environmental organizations.

 

The following criteria are established in the new guidelines for TND developments:

·         Streets will be designed to be only as wide as needed for low-speed traffic.

·         Narrow streets are part of a dense transportation network that also includes sidewalks, walking paths and bike lanes.

·         Sidewalks will line both sides of most neighborhood streets to encourage walking.

·         On lower traffic volume streets, bicyclists should be considered a normal part of traffic. On higher volume streets, bicyclists should be accommodated with six-feet-wide bike lanes, but separate routes for less experienced bicyclists may be considered as well.

·         On-street parking along major streets should have signs, markings or otherwise clearly be designated.

·         Planting strips, located between the curb and sidewalk, help create shaded streets, promote walking and slow traffic.

·         As a general rule, more and shorter street lights are preferred.

 

The Return Of The Two-Way Street: Why The Double-Yellow Stripe Is Making A Comeback In Downtowns.

Alan Ehrenhalt, Governing Magazine, December 2009

 

Over the past couple of decades, Vancouver, Washington, has spent millions of dollars trying to revitalize its downtown, and especially the area around Main Street that used to be the primary commercial center. Just how much the city has spent isn’t easy to determine. But it’s been an ambitious program. Vancouver has totally refurbished a downtown park, subsidized condos and apartment buildings overlooking it and built a new downtown Hilton hotel.

 

Some of these investments have been successful, but they did next to nothing for Main Street itself. Through most of this decade, the street remained about as dreary as ever. Then, a year ago, the city council tried a new strategy. Rather than wait for the $14 million more in state and federal money it was planning to spend on projects on and around Main Street, it opted for something much simpler. It painted yellow lines in the middle of the road, took down some signs and put up others, and installed some new traffic lights. In other words, it took a one-way street and opened it up to two-way traffic.

 

The merchants on Main Street had high hopes for this change. But none of them were prepared for what actually happened following the changeover on November 16, 2008. In the midst of a severe recession, Main Street in Vancouver seemed to come back to life almost overnight.

 

Within a few weeks, the entire business community was celebrating. “We have twice as many people going by as they did before,” one of the employees at an antique store told a local reporter. The chairman of the Vancouver Downtown Association, Lee Coulthard, sounded more excited than almost anyone else. “It’s like, wow,” he exclaimed, “why did it take us so long to figure this out?”

 

A year later, the success of the project is even more apparent. Twice as many cars drive down Main Street every day, without traffic jams or serious congestion. The merchants are still happy. “One-way streets should not be allowed in prime downtown retail areas,” says Rebecca Ocken, executive director of Vancouver’s Downtown Association. “We’ve proven that.”

 

The debate over one-way versus two-way streets has been going on for more than half a century now in American cities, and it is far from resolved even yet. But the evidence seems to suggest that the two-way side is winning. A growing number of cities, including big ones such as Minneapolis, Louisville and Oklahoma City, have converted the traffic flow of major streets to two-way or laid out plans to do so. There has been virtually no movement in the other direction.

 

Anyone who travels a lot to the center of big cities has had an experience like this: You arrive at night, and start looking for your hotel. You find it, but you can’t drive to the entrance because the street is one-way the other way. Finally you come to a street that goes the way you want, but once you get close again, the signs won’t allow you to make the turn you need to make. You can waste 20 minutes this way. And as you keep driving, you notice that the streets are empty anyway. Any reason that might have existed for turning them into single-purpose speedways simply did not apply anymore.

 

Meanwhile, local governments were slowly learning that the old two-way streets, whatever the occasional frustration, had real advantages in fostering urban life. Traffic moved at a more modest pace, and there was usually a row of cars parked by the curb to serve as a buffer between pedestrians and moving vehicles. If you have trouble perceiving the difference, try asking yourself this question: How many successful sidewalk cafés have you ever encountered on a four-lane, one-way street with cars rushing by at 50 miles per hour? My guess is, very few indeed.

So over the past 10 years, dozens of cities have reconfigured one-way streets into two-way streets as a means of bringing their downtowns to life. The political leadership and the local business community usually join forces in favor of doing this. There are always arguments against it. Some of them are worth stopping to consider.

 

Among the critics are traffic engineers and academics who were taught some fixed principles of transportation in school decades ago and have never bothered to reconsider them. Joseph Dumas, a professor at the University of Tennessee, argued a few years ago that “the primary purpose of roads is to move traffic efficiently and safely, not to encourage or discourage business or rebuild parts of town . . . . Streets are tools for traffic engineering.”

 

If you agree that streets serve no other purpose than to move automobiles, you are unlikely to see much problem with making them one-way. On the other hand, if you think that streets possess the capacity to enhance the quality of urban life, you will probably consider the Dumas Doctrine to be nonsense. That is the way more and more cities are coming to feel.

 

There are other arguments. It’s sometimes said that more accidents occur on two-way streets than one-way streets. The research that supports this claim is decades old, and to my knowledge, has not been replicated. Even if you accept this argument, though, you might want to consider that, at slower speeds, the accidents on two-way streets are much more likely to be fender-benders at left-turn intersections, not harrowing high-speed crashes involving cars and pedestrians.

 

Finally, there are complaints from fire departments that it takes them longer to reach the scene of trouble when they have to thread their way around oncoming traffic, rather than taking a straight shot down a one-way speedway. I can’t refute this, and in any case, I don’t like arguing with fire departments. But I have to wonder how many people have died in burning buildings in recent years because a fire truck wasn’t allowed to use a one-way street.

 

I wouldn’t argue that two-way streets are any sort of panacea for urban revival, Vancouver’s experience notwithstanding. And I understand that they are not always practical. Some streets simply are too narrow to have traffic moving in both directions; others have to be designated one-way because their purpose is to feed traffic onto expressways.

 

What I would say is this: When it comes to designing or retrofitting streets, the burden of proof shouldn’t fall on those who want to use them the old-fashioned way. It should be on those who think the speedway ideology of the 1950s serves much of a purpose half a century later.

 

 

Main Street…When a Highway Runs Through It (DEA & Associates, 1999)

Many communities have main streets (streets that are major commercial centers) that also serve as a major arterials or highway. This requires streetscape planning and management that balances the needs of local users (pedestrians, shoppers, employees, business owners, and residents) with the needs of through traffic (both auto and freight) to move safely and efficiently over longer distances.

 

The State of Oregon produced a handbook titled Main Street…When a Highway Runs Through It, which offers guidance for communities to address these issues. It describes the many tools available to identify the problems and develop effective solutions for main streets that also serve as highways. As a complement to the Oregon Highway Design Manual, this handbook seeks to bring peaceful coexistence to the dual personas of downtown and highway. It proposes ways to design our main streets that make use of our natural inclination to drive as quickly or slowly as the roadway itself suggests. Its goal is to make main street a place that is attractive and that works from many points of view: pedestrian safety and activity, smooth traffic flow,economic vigor, and high quality of life.

 

An Urban Success Story: Octavia Boulevard An Asset To Post-Central Freeway Area

By John King, San Francicso Chronicle, 3 January 2007

(http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/01/03/BAG4VNBUJM1.DTL)

 

In the 15 months since it opened, San Francisco's Octavia Boulevard has been hailed as a model for other cities. It has been honored at the local and national level, including an award last month from the American Planning Association.

 

But here's the real measure of success: The thoroughfare that replaced the elevated Central Freeway feels like it belongs. It's not perfect, but it keeps cars moving while making the neighborhood around it a better place to be. That's exactly what was promised on 9 Sept. 2005, when politicians and community members gathered for a ribbon-cutting ceremony where Octavia Boulevard begins on the north side of Market Street , across from broad ramps leading to and from Highway 101.

 

The event was the culmination of a long battle to rid Hayes Valley of the Central Freeway, a double-deck structure that opened in 1959. The freeway connected western San Francisco to the center of the city -- but it split apart the neighborhood below, creating blight and a magnet for crime.

 

The fight began in earnest in 1996, when the freeway was closed temporarily to strengthen it against earthquakes. Three years and four competing ballot measures later, San Francisco's government and the California Department of Transportation agreed to build a ground-level thoroughfare instead. That campaign is what brought last month's recognition from the American Planning Association, which gave Octavia Boulevard the group's first "achievement award for hard-won victories."

 

It also cleared the way for the roadway that now exists, a short boulevard that draws on pre-freeway-era traffic engineering. At the most basic level, the boulevard connects the ramps that touch down at Market Street with Oak and Fell streets a few blocks to the north. Those roads serve as the main east-west link between downtown San Francisco and the neighborhoods around Golden Gate Park. But the idea is also to make the boulevard an urbane centerpiece to the blocks around it.

 

Commuters use Octavia's four central lanes, two in each direction, separated by low shrubs and elm trees. On either side of the commute lanes – buffered by poplar trees and more shrubs – is a "local lane" for neighborhood traffic, one heading north and one heading south.

 

The final touch, on the northern block: a neighborhood square with picnic tables and a play structure, two small lawns and a paved area reserved for temporary art installations. Any driver who relies on the boulevard can testify it's not a panacea. The morning commute often backs onto Oak Street; in the evenings, northbound lanes clog to the extent that impatient drivers often hop onto the local lane.

 

Part of the problem is unavoidable: American drivers expect throughways to be designed for convenience and speed. Octavia's openness may invite impatient drivers to accelerate -- though that openness will fade as trees mature and housing rises on empty lots created by the freeway demolition. The confusion also results from decisions at the city level.

 

For starters, the local lanes are too alluring. They're wider than what was proposed by planners Allan Jacobs and Elizabeth Macdonald, who designed the boulevard in collaboration with city staff led by the Department of Public Works; they also lack any sort of rough texture or wide bumps that would send a tactile signal to slow down. It's a change worth making as soon as budget allows.

 

Another problem is unavoidable: the location. This is a short boulevard that starts at San Francisco's central artery, Market Street. There are bans on making turns from Market onto the freeway on-ramp and from the boulevard onto Market, but logic dictates otherwise. No wonder there's confusion and frayed tempers.

 

But congestion doesn't mean the system is a failure. It means the boulevard is filling a need; a six-month study by the city's Department of Parking and Traffic found it attracts 45,000 vehicles on a typical weekday. And for whatever reason, slow-moving traffic is more irritating when you're on a city street than when you're on a freeway.

 

A better way to gauge the boulevard's success involves the condition of the landscaping and public spaces. In other words, are they as enticing after real-life wear as they were on opening day? The heartening answer is yes. Shrubs are filling in. Trees are spreading out. It's easy to imagine thick bands of greenery in five years that offer visual screens and a true sense of place. The small park has blossomed as well. You'll see people with dogs and people with cell phones, shoppers passing through and locals settled on a bench with coffee and friends. A street person can be napping on a bench while kids clamber on the play structure, and life goes on.

 

Even here, though, not everything is idyllic. The patch of green next to the play structure is a natural place for toddlers to let off steam – but some dog owners treat it as a track and bathroom for their pets. In other words, Octavia Boulevard could be better. There's congestion on the roadway and tension at the park. But in both cases, the problems are a result of popularity. They're heavily used. The larger picture is this: Things work. Hayes Valley has a gathering place. The landscape is well-maintained. Traffic continues to flow.

 

Octavia Boulevard began as a beguiling idea. Today, it's a promise fulfilled. In a city like San Francisco, that's progress -- the good kind.

 

 

Crossroads Area Streetscape Plan (www.cupertino.org)

The City of Cupertino, California developed a streetscape plan for the Crossroads area to create an attractive, pedestrian-friendly shopping district at the town’s historic shopping core. The plan includes the following features:

 

·         A 20-foot wide sidewalk with street furniture, pedestrian lighting and street trees along Stevens Creek Boulevard as new buildings are constructed or existing buildings are redeveloped.

 

·         Buildings closer to the street and locate parking to the rear (for new construction).

 

·         Active retail on the ground floor along Stevens Creek Boulevard.

 

·         Decreased building heights from three to two stories to the rear of properties that are adjacent to single family residential zones, and allow more flexibility for building heights (an increase from 45 feet to 55 feet) in the front half of properties along Stevens Creek Boulevard for architectural features and pitched roofs.

 

 

Seattle Street Improvement Programs (Seattle, 1996)

The city of Seattle has developed a guidebook called Making Streets that Work which provides information for residents concerning how to request various types of street improvements, including traffic calming, street furniture, and temporary road closures for special events.

 

 

Manual For Streets (www.manualforstreets.org.uk)

The Manual for Streets, published by the UK Department for Transport and Communities and Local Government, provides practical guidance for balancing multiple, often conflicting objectives in roadway planning and management. This document:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Economic Benefits of Street Design Improvements (CABE, 2007)

A study by the UK Commission on Architecture and the Built Environment shows how good street design contributes both economic benefits and public value. It shows that investment in design quality brings quantifiable financial returns and that people value improvements to their streets. Ten London high streets were selected as case studies. The research shows that in London an achievable improvement in street design quality typically increase residential and commercial property values about 5%, reflecting the value that people place on an attractive street environment and the contribution it makes to local economic activity.

 

 

SoHo Streetscape (Schaller Consulting, 2006)

A survey of more than 1,000 drivers and pedestrians traveling to a commercial street in central New York city found that most area shoppers do not drive, and that shifting street space from vehicle parking to pedestrians would increase the number of shoppers and the amount of business activity in the area. Shoppers who value wider sidewalks over parking spent about five times as much money, in the aggregate, as those who value parking over sidewalks. “The majority of shopping dollars, and the majority of residents and visitors that spend them, come by mass transit and on foot. The way we manage our street space should reflect this basic fact,” says Bruce Schaller, Principal of Schaller Consulting. “We already know that wider sidewalks are good for health, safety, and quality of life, now we know that they are also good for NYC's business,” says Paul Steely White, Executive Director of Transportation Alternatives.

 

 

Ninth Avenue Complete Street (www.dot.nyc.gov)

In the fall of 2007, the New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) completely redesigned Ninth Avenue in Manhattan, New York part of a “complete street” design. The new design incorporates an innovative and robust bicycle facility between the parking lane and sidewalk.

 

Major project elements included shortening the pedestrian crossing distance of this 70-foot-wide avenue and protecting the bicycle path from vehicular incursion, which has been an ongoing problem with traditional on-street bicycle lanes in Manhattan and which discourages cycling. To make the improvements quickly, the project was executed with operational measures rather than initiating a costly and time consuming capital construction project. The bicycle path in the project is separated from moving vehicles by an eight-foot buffer, a parking lane and from turning vehicles by discrete signal phases. At intersections, there are pedestrian refuge islands and turn bays where needed. The project uses pavement markings, signs, traffic signals and raised concrete islands to create a unique, safe and enjoyable street.

 

In preparation for the project, the project team reviewed studies and design treatments from abroad as well as our own work with bicycle facilities in New York. However, the team found no design that met our project goals and therefore developed an entirely new design for the project. Traditional bicycle lanes are located between the parking lane and travel lane of a roadway, where they are subject to violation by motor vehicles, but where visibility between motorists and cyclists is good. European cycle tracks are raised and therefore costly and difficult to build quickly. In order to move the bicycle lane between the parking lane and sidewalk, unique design treatments were developed to address the inherent loss of visibility and turning conflicts this type of configuration would create. A creative use of operational treatments allowed for quick and inexpensive installation.

 

Since the street grid of Manhattan consists of mostly one-way streets, there are only turning conflicts at every other intersection. At intersections where turns cross over the bicycle lane, we designed left-turn bays directly adjacent to the bicycle lane with protected left-turn phases to completely separate the conflicting through cyclist and left-turning motorist movements. Bicycle signal lenses are employed to regulate movement on the bicycle path.

 

The project has created a street that works for all of the users of the street, while responding to the limitations of existing bicycle facility design. In addition to creating a highly safe and enjoyable cycling environment, the project dramatically improved conditions for pedestrians, by narrowing the effective crossing distance of Ninth Avenue by almost 30 feet. Dedicated commercial loading space was also created for businesses on Ninth Avenue utilizing state-of-the-art multi-space parking meters. The aesthetic quality of the avenue is being further improved this spring when the pedestrian refuge islands created in the project will be planted with trees and shrubs by the Parks Department. Moreover, the project was achieved without creating additional traffic congestion.

 

To protect bicycle lanes from incursion by motor vehicles, the New York City cycling community, led by advocates and bicycle commuters, has appealed to NYCDOT to develop physically separated on-street bicycle facilities for close to a decade, often citing examples in northern and western European cities. The lack of a design for such a facility that could withstand the rigors of New York City’s streets has been an obstacle to implementing a physically separated bicycle lane in New York. However, the design piloted on Ninth Avenue has proven highly effective at addressing the problem of vehicular incursions while effectively mitigating the visibility and turning conflict problems.

 

 

Urban Street Design Guidelines (Charlotte, 2007)

The City of Charlotte, North Carolina’s Urban Street Design Guidelines (USDG) are intended to create complete streets – streets that provide capacity and mobility for motorists, while also being safer and more comfortable for pedestrians, cyclists, and neighborhood residents. The USDG include information about why this new approach to planning and designing streets is necessary, how the guidelines should be applied, and how specific design features should be used for different types of streets.

           

 

Complete Streets Gain Acceptance (www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-29-streetinside_N.htm)

Narrowed Roads Gain Acceptance In Colorado, Elsewhere

By John Ritter, USA Today

 

When Colorado Springs decided to make streets friendly to users other than cars, county officials howled. They threatened to withhold $3 million in transportation money if the city narrowed a street in front of county office buildings to add sidewalks and bike lanes.

 

The city went ahead and redesigned Tejon Street's traffic pattern under its "complete streets" program. It's part of a national trend that has dozens of state and local governments considering the needs of pedestrians, bike riders, seniors, the disabled and mass transit when they plan new roads or reconfigure existing ones.

 

Nearly a year later, the Tejon Street changes — its new "road diet" — have held up and the controversy has died, says city transportation manager Craig Blewitt. "A lot of people asked, 'Why are we reducing the number of lanes when the city has a congestion problem?' " he says. "Once this was talked through and explained, opponents decided to support it."

 

Proponents such as Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson say complete streets policies make a city more livable and give residents options besides driving. Seniors who don't drive can walk safely and get to bus stops. A goal is to "calm" traffic on less busy streets. The concept even does its small part in the fight against obesity and global warming, proponents say, because it encourages exercise and reduces greenhouse gas emissions with fewer vehicle trips.

 

America's demographics are driving the complete streets movement, Abramson says. "The society is getting older. We're jogging, walking, bicycling much more than ever before," he says. Empty nesters leaving big suburban homes for downsized urban living want friendly, walkable streets, he says.

 

Critics such as David Hartgen, emeritus professor of transportation at the University of North Carolina-Charlotte, say pressure from interest groups such as senior advocates and bicycle organizations is forcing changes that can disrupt a road network beyond the stretches that have gotten a complete streets treatment. "It's really just arrogance and selfishness on the part of usually very small groups of individuals," Hartgen says. "They exert political power to 'take back the street,' but the street is not theirs to take back."

 

Sooner better than later

Even skeptics such as the League of California Cities concede that it's smarter and cheaper to design sidewalks, bike paths and transit amenities at the start of a project than to add them later. "The argument that persuaded Illinois legislators (to pass a complete streets bill last month) is that it's cheaper to do it right the first time," says Barbara McCann, coordinator of the National Complete Streets Coalition.

 

In Illinois, safety was also a focus of the debate over the bill awaiting the governor's signature. After a 17-year-old boy was killed in 2000 riding his bike across the only bridge over the Fox River outside Cary, his family won a wrongful death lawsuit against the state. Public pressure forced the state to add bike and pedestrian access to the bridge.

 

Complete streets designs usually take account of road types. Bike lanes and sidewalks aren't appropriate on freeways, for instance. When a city respects needs of the 50-plus residents in designing streets, "you absolutely make it livable for everybody else," says Elinor Ginzler, the AARP's livable communities director.

 

Complete streets make economic sense in Colorado, says Dan Grunig, executive director of the advocacy group Bicycle Colorado. A state study in 2000 found that 70% of the 700,000 visitors to mountain resorts who bicycled during their stays came from out of state and spent at least $141 million.

 

'A perfect storm of issues'

Cheri Harem, Chicago's acting transportation commissioner, says user-friendly streets are a priority of Mayor Richard Daley. "We decided to formalize the policy last year to make a stronger statement," Harem says. The public has bought into complete streets, she says, because the city won't modify a street without seeking community feedback.

 

Oregon's 1971 law requiring sidewalks and bike paths on most of the state's roads is considered the first major move toward complete streets. Over the years, creating bike access became popular in many parts of the country. But now state and local governments, like Chicago, are saying, in effect, let's consider all users every time we build or rebuild a road.

 

"There's an awakening because of a perfect storm of issues coming together," says Randy Neufeld, head of the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation. With growing concern over an obesity epidemic, cities see how streets, and the ability to be physically active on them, affects their health, he says. Rising gasoline prices, the push to cut greenhouse gas emissions and aging baby boomers who're getting out of their cars are all factors advancing the complete streets movement, Neufeld says.

 

Mark Leno, the California assemblyman who sponsored a bill that passed one chamber, cites estimates that if every resident of a city of 100,000 replaced one car trip with one walking or biking trip once a month, emissions of carbon dioxide, a key greenhouse gas, would be cut by nearly 4,000 tons a year. "So this tiny little consideration of accommodation of the roadway, this relatively simple act, has far-reaching implications," Leno says.

 

 

Ciclovia and Recreovia (www.streetfilms.org/archives/ciclovia)

Every Sunday more than 70 miles of Bogota, Columbia streets are closed to motor vehicle traffic so residents can walk, bike, run, skate, recreate, picnic, and visit with family, neighbors & strangers. Nearly 1.8 million Colombians use the Ciclovia and Recreovia to de-stress, get healthy, and connect personally with their fellow citizens. Young or old, rich or poor, pedestrian or cyclist - in Bogotá everyone loves the Ciclovia. This program encourages share living, civility and urbanism.

 

 

Portland Guide for Public Street Improvements (www.portlandonline.com/auditor/index.cfm?c=27478).

The city of Portland, Oregon developed several information resources to help improve street design quality:

 

 

 

 

 

London Streetscape Guidance (TfL, 2005)

The City of London has established guidelines for streetscaping that describe the type of pedestrian facilities, landscaping, materials, signage, street furniture and building design features that should be applied when possible. The program also includes significant funding for implementing streetscape improvements along specific roads.

 

 

References And Resources For More Information

 

AARP (2009), Planning Complete Streets for an Aging America, American Association for Retired Persons Public Policy Institute (www.aarp.org/ppi); at www.aarp.org/research/housing-mobility/transportation/2009_02_streets.html.

 

AIGA (2005), Symbol Signs, American Institute of Graphic Arts (www.aiga.org/content.cfm?ContentAlias=symbolsigns). Provides a list of 50 standard symbols for use in buildings, on streets, in transportation terminals, and other locations were people require wayfinding directions.

 

Constance Beaumont and Leslie Tucker (2002), Big-Box Sprawl (And How to Control It), National Trust for Historic Preservation (www.nationaltrust.org).

 

CABE (2007), Paved with Gold: The Real Value of Street Design, Commission on Architecture and the Built Environment (www.cabe.org.uk); at www.cabe.org.uk/default.aspx?contentitemid=1956.

 

Charles C. Bohl (2002), Place Making: Developing Town Centers, Main Streets and Urban Villages, Urban Land Institute (www.uli.org).

 

Dan Burden (1998), Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods, Center for Livable Communities (www.lgc.org/clc).

 

Dan Burden and Peter Lagerway (1999), Road Diets Free Millions for New Investment, Walkable Communities (www.walkable.org).  

 

Stephen Burrington & Veronika Thiebach (1995), Take Back Your Streets; How to Protect Communities from Asphalt and Traffic, Conservation Law Foundation (www.clf.org).

 

Julie Campoli and Alex MacLean (2002), Visualing Density: A Catalog Illustrating the Density of Residential Neighborhoods, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (www.lincolninst.edu); at www.lincolninst.edu/subcenters/visualizing-density.

 

Michael Carley, Karryn Kirk and Sarah McIntosh (2001), Retailing, Sustainability And Neighbourhood Regeneration, (ISBN 1 84263 49 0) Joseph Roundtree Foundation (www.jrf.org.uk).

 

Center for Livable Communities (www.lgc.org/clc) helps local governments and community leaders be proactive in their land use and transportation planning.

 

Charlotte (2007), Urban Street Design Guidelines, Charlotte Department of Transportation (www.charmeck.org); www.charmeck.org/Departments/Transportation/Urban+Street+Design+Guidelines.htm.

 

CITE (2004), Canadian Guide to Promoting Sustainable Transportation Through Site Design, Canadian Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.cite7.org); at www.cite7.org/Technical_Projects/sitedesignreview.htm.

 

Citizen Planner Institute (www.citizenplanner.com) trains average citizens, public officials, business people, and kids in the basics of neighborhood and town design.

 

CIVITAS (www.civitas-initiative.org) is a European Commission supported initiative to help introduce sustainable urban transport strategies.

 

The City on the Move Institute (www.ville-en-mouvement.com) supports the development of the cultures of urban mobility and of civilities, with particular attention to streetscape design and management.

 

CMHC (2008), Taming the Flow — Better Traffic and Safer Neighbourhoods, Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca); at www03.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/b2c/catalog/product.do?next=cross#.

 

Congress for the New Urbanism (www.cnu.org), provides a variety of information on innovative urban design. The CNU Narrow Streets Database (www.sonic.net/abcaia/narrow.htm) describes more flexible zoning codes being implemented in various communities.

 

CNU (2003), Civilizing Downtown Highways: Putting New Urbanism To Work On California’s Highways, Congress for the New Urbanism (www.cnu.org).

 

Complete Streets (www.completestreets.org) is a campaign to promote roadway designs that effectively accommodate multiple modes and support local planning objectives.

 

CTRE (2006), Four-Lane to Three-Lane Conversion: Research Projects/Reports, Center for Transportation Research and Education (www.ctre.iastate.edu/research/4laneto3lane.htm).

 

Colin Davis (1996), “Streetscape,” Building Conservation Directory (http://www.buildingconservation.com/articles/scape/scape.htm).

 

DEA & Associates (1999), Main Street…When a Highway Runs Through It, Transportation and Growth Management Program, Oregon DOT and Dept. of Environmental Quality (www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/publications.htm).

 

DfT (2006), Manual for Streets, Department for Transport (www.manualforstreets.org.uk). Provides guidance to practitioners on effective street design.

 

Richard Dowling, et al. (2008), Multimodal Level Of Service Analysis For Urban Streets, NCHRP Report 616, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org); at http://trb.org/news/blurb_detail.asp?id=9470; User Guide at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w128.pdf. This describes ways to evaluate roadway design impacts on various modes (walking, cycling, driving and public transit).

 

DPZ (2005), Smart Code; A Comprehensive Form Based Ordinance, The Town Paper (http://tndtownpaper.com). This model zoning code developed by Duany Plater-Zyberk promotes New Urban development by allowing more flexibility and innovation in building and street design.

 

DVTPC (2008), Smart Transportation Guidebook: Planning and Designing Highways and Streets that Support Sustainable and Livable Communities, Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (www.dvrpc.org); at www.dvrpc.org/asp/pubs/publicationabstract.asp?pub_id=08030A.

 

EC (2009), Reclaiming City Streets For People: Chaos Or Quality Of Life?, European Commission Directorate-General For The Environment (www.ec.europa.eu/index_en.htm); at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pubs/pdf/streets_people.pdf.

 

ERM Mitchell McCotter Pty. (2000), Livable Neighborhoods: Street Layout, Design and Traffic Management Guidelines, Department for Planning and Infrastructure and the Western Australian Planning Commission (www.planning.wa.gov.au/cgi-bin/index.cgi?page=/publications/content.html).

 

Michelle Ernst and Lilly Shoup (2009), Dangerous by Design: Solving the Epidemic of Preventable Pedestrian Deaths (and Making Great Neighborhoods), Transport for America (http://t4america.org); at http://t4america.org/docs/dangerousbydesign/dangerous_by_design.pdf.

 

Robert M. Eschbacher (2006), “Traffic Calming As An Integral Element Of A Suburban Revitalization Program,” ITE Journal, Vol. 76, No. 11 (www.ite.org), November 2006, pp. 28-29.

 

Reid Ewing and Steven Brown (2009), U.S. Traffic Calming Manual, Planners Press (www.planning.org) and ASCE Press (www.asce.org).

 

GDOT, Pedestrian & Streetscape Guide, Georgia Department of Transportation (www.dot.state.ga.us); at www.walkable.org/download/Georgia_ped_streetscape_guide.pdf.

 

GQGP (2003), Smart Growth Audit Tool, Georgia Quality Growth Partnership (www.georgiaqualitygrowth.com). Identifies best practices for Smart Growth zoning codes and development requirements.

 

Greenroads (www.greenroads.us) describes a proposed standard for quantifying sustainable practices associated with the design and construction of roads.

 

Great Streets (www.greatstreets.org) is an Internet site that provides information on urban design issues.

 

Ellen Greenberg (2008), “Sustainable Streets: An Emerging Practice,” ITE Journal, Vol. 78, No. 5 (www.ite.org), pp. 29-39.

 

Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org) has many resources for streetscape design and planning.

 

ITE (2006), Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities, Proposed Recommended Practice, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org); at www.ite.org/bookstore/RP036.pdf.

 

Peter Jones, Natalya Boujenko and Stephen Marshall (2007), Link & Place: A Guide to Street Planning and Design, Landor Books (www.landor.co.uk); summarized in Stephen Marshall, Peter Jones and Natalya Boujenko, N. (2008), “Planning Streets by ‘Link and Place’”, Town & Country Planning, Vol. 77, No. 2, February 2008, pp. 74-79.

 

Daniel A. Kueper (2007), “Road Diet Treatment in Ocean City, NJ, USA,” ITE Journal, Vol. 77, No. 2 (www.ite.org), February 2007, pp. 18-22.

 

John LaPlante and Barbara McCann (2008), “Complete Streets: We Can Get There From Here,” ITE Journal, Vol. 78, No. 5 (www.ite.org), pp. 24-28.

 

LGC (2004), Creating Great Neighborhoods: Density in Your Community, Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org), US Environmental Protection Agency and the National Association of Realtors; available at www.lgc.org/freepub/PDF/Land_Use/reports/density_manual.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (1999), Traffic Calming Costs, Benefits and Equity Impacts, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); available at www.vtpi.org/calming.pdf. Report details various costs and benefits of Traffic Calming.

 

Todd Litman (2003), “Economic Value of Walkability,” Transportation Research Record 1828, Transportation Research Board (www.trb.org), pp. 3-11; available at www.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf.

 

Todd Litman (2006), “Managing Diverse Modes and Activities on Nonmotorized Facilities: Guidance for Practitioners,” ITE Journal, Vol. 76, No. 6 (www.ite.org), June 2006, pp. 20-27.

 

Todd Litman and Robin Blair (2005), Managing Personal Mobility Devices (PMDs) On Nonmotorized Facilities, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); available at www.vtpi.org/man_nmt_fac.pdf

 

Living Streets (www.livingstreets.org.uk) (previously the Pedestrians Association) campaigns for urban redevelopment and pedestrian welfare. It provides a variety of information on ways of making streets and urban neighborhoods more livable.

 

Elizabeth MacDonald (2006), “Building A Boulevard,” ACCESS 28, University of California Transportation Center (www.uctc.net), Spring 2006, pp. 2-9.

 

Elizabeth MacDonald (2008), “The Intersection of Trees and Safety,” Access, Number 31, University of California Transportation Center (www.uctc.net/access), Fall 2007, pp. 20-26.

 

Elizabeth MacDonald, Rebecca Sanders and Paul Supawanich (2008), The Effects Of Transportation Corridors’ Roadside Design Features On User Behavior And Safety, And Their Contributions To Health, Environmental Quality, And Community Economic Vitality: A Literature Review, University of California Transportation Center (www.uctc.net).

 

Main Street Center (www.mainstreet.org) provides information on ways to revitalize traditional commercial areas through historic preservation and grassroots-based economic development.

 

Metro (2003), Creating Livable Streets: Street Design Guidelines for 2040, Portland Metro (www.metro-region.org).

 

John Muhlhausen (2005), Wayfinding Is Not Signage: Signage Plays An Important Part Of Wayfinding – But There's More, (www.signweb.com/ada/cont/wayfinding0800.html).

 

National Trust Mainstreet Center (www.mainstreet.org) is a program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation which supports innovative commercial district revitalization that combines historic preservation with economic development to restore prosperity and vitality to downtowns and neighborhood business districts.

 

Dom Nozzi (2003), Road To Ruin: An Introduction To Sprawl And How To Cure It, Praeger (www.praeger.com).

 

NYDOT (2009), New York City Street Design Manual, New York City Department of Transportation  (www.nyc.gov/html/dot) at www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/about/streetdesignmanual.shtml.

 

Otak Inc. (1999), Infill and Redevelopment Code Handbook, Transportation and Growth Management Program, Oregon DOT and Dept. of Environmental Quality (www.lcd.state.or.us/tgm/publications.htm).

 

Portland (2004), Design Guide for Public Street Improvements, Bureau of Transportation Engineering and Development, City of Portland (www.portlandonline.com).

 

PPS (2000), How Transportation and Community Partnerships Are Shaping America; Part II: Streets and Roads, Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org) for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials.

 

PPS (2008a), A Citizen’s Guide to Better Streets, Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org); at www.pps.org/pdf/bookstore/How_to_Engage_Your_Transportation_Agency_AARP.pdf.

 

PPS (2008b), Streets As Places: Using Streets To Rebuild Communities, Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org); at www.pps.org/pdf/bookstore/Using_Streets_to_Rebuild_Communities.pdf.

 

PPS (2008c), The Quiet Revolution in Transportation Planning: How Great Corridors Make Great Communities, Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org); at www.pps.org/pdf/bookstore/Great_Corridors_Great_Communities.pdf.

 

Project for Public Spaces (www.pps.org) works to create and sustain public places that build communities. It provides a variety of resources for developing more livable communities.

 

John Ritter (2007), “Narrowed Roads Gain Acceptance In Colorado, Elsewhere,” USA Today (www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-29-streetinside_N.htm)

 

Jennifer Rosales (2006), Road Diet Handbook: Setting Trends for Livable Streets, William Barclay Parsons Fellowship Monograph 20, Parsons Brinckerhoff (www.pbworld.com/library/fellowship); summary at www.oregonite.org/2007D6/paper_review/D4_201_Rosales_paper.pdf.

 

Jennifer A. Rosales (2007), “President's Award for Merit in Transportation Engineering: Road Diet Handbook,” ITE Journal (www.ite.org), Vol. 77, No. 11, November 2007, pp. 26-41.

 

Jody Rosenblatt Naderi, Byoung Suk Kweon and Praveen Maghela (2008), “The Street Tree Effect and Driver Safety,” ITE Journal on the Web, Vol. 78, No. 2 (www.ite.org), Feb. 2008, pp. 69-73.

 

Schaller Consulting (2006), Curbing Cars: Shopping, Parking and Pedestrian Space in SoHo, Transportation Alternatives (www.transalt.org); available at www.transalt.org/campaigns/reclaiming/soho_curbing_cars.pdf.

 

Seattle (1996), Making Streets that Work, City of Seattle (www.ci.seattle.wa.us/npo/tblis.htm). Handbook for residents describes how to request various street improvements, including Traffic Calming.

 

Smart Code (www.smartcode.org) is a planning implementation tool based on Smart Growth principles.

 

STAQC (2005), Best Practices for Complete Streets, Sacramento Transportation and Air Quality Collaborative www.completestreets.org/documents/FinalReportII_BPCompleteStreets.pdf

 

Thomas B. Stout, et al (2006), “Safety Impacts of ‘Road Diets” in Iowa,” ITE Journal, vo. 76, No. 12 (www.ite.org), December 2006, pp. 24-27.

 

TfL (2005), Streetscape Guidance, Street Management Section, Transport for London (www.tfl.gov.uk/streets/streetscape-guidance.shtml). This document provides guidance for designing streets in the City of London.

 

TRL (2006), Manual for Streets, UK Ministry for Transport (www.manualforstreets.org.uk). This guidebook provides detailed technical information on all aspects of street design.

 

Urban Renaissance Institute (www.urban-renaissance.org) works to help cities and their regions flourish by applying innovative market-based policies.

 

USEPA, Smart Growth Policy Database, US Environmental Protection Agency (http://cfpub.epa.gov/sgpdb/browse.cfm) provides information on dozens of policies that encourage more efficient transportation and land use patterns, with hundreds of case studies.

 

WCEL (2004), Smart Bylaws Guide, West Coast Environmental Law Foundation (www.wcel.org); at www.wcel.org/issues/urban/sbg. This comprehensive guide describes smart growth practices, provides technical standards and model bylaws that can be tailored to specific municipal circumstances, and includes numerous case studies.

This Encyclopedia is produced by the Victoria Transport Policy Institute to help improve understanding of Transportation Demand Management. It is an ongoing project. Please send us your comments and suggestions for improvement.

 

VTPI

Homepage

Encyclopedia Homepage

Send Comments

 

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

www.vtpi.org       info@vtpi.org

1250 Rudlin Street, Victoria, BC,  V8V 3R7,  CANADA

Phone & Fax 250-360-1560

“Efficiency - Equity - Clarity”

 

#122