Walkability Improvements
Strategies to Make Walking Convenient, Safe and Pleasant
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Victoria Transport Policy
Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
26 July 2008
This chapter describes
various ways to improve walking conditions and encourage pedestrian
transportation.
Walkability reflects overall walking conditions in an area (Evaluating NMT). Walkability takes into account the quality of pedestrian facilities, roadway conditions, land use patterns, community support, security and comfort for walking. Walkability can be evaluated at various scales. At a site scale, walkability is affected by the quality of pathways, building accessways and related facilities. At a street or neighborhood level, it is affected by the existence of sidewalks and crosswalks, and roadway conditions (road widths, traffic volumes and speeds). At the community level it is also affected by land use Accessibility, such as the relative location of common destinations and the quality of connections between them.
There are many specific ways to improve walkability (ADONIS, 1998; Litman, et al., 2000). Major categories include:
·
Improved sidewalks, crosswalks and paths.
·
Improved Nonmotorized Facility Management and
Maintenance, including reducing conflicts between users and maintaining
cleanliness.
·
Universal Design (transportation systems that
accommodate special needs, including people using wheelchairs, walkers,
strollers and hand carts).
·
Provide pedestrian countdown signals, which indicate how many seconds
are left in the walk phase (Markowitz, et al, 2006).
·
Create Pedways, which are enclosed urban walkway
networks that connect buildings and transportation terminals. Provide covered walkways,
loading and waiting areas, with shade from hot sun and protection from rain.
·
Improve pedestrian Accessibility by creating Location-Efficient, Clustered,
mixed land use patterns, with good road and path Connectivity,
and pedestrian-oriented buildings, reflecting New Urbanist
design principles.
·
Develop Transportation Access Guides, which
provide concise information for accessing a destination by walking, cycling and
public transit, and facilities and services for people with special mobility
needs.
·
Concentrate more activities into walkable Commercial
Centers.
·
Street furniture and pedestrian facilities (e.g., benches,
pedestrian-oriented street light, public washrooms, etc.).
·
Design in a pedestrian scale, with shorter blocks, narrower streets,
pedestrian-oriented buildings and street furniture.
·
Create more Livable communities and more
pedestrian-oriented Streetscapes.
·
Traffic Calming, Speed
Reductions, Streetscape Improvements and Vehicle Restrictions.
·
Road Space Reallocation to increase the portion
of public rights-of-way devoted to sidewalks.
·
Active Transportation Encouragement programs.
·
Address Pedestrian Security Concerns.
·
Use Multi-Modal Level-of-Service Indicators to
evaluate walkability problems and negative impacts on pedestrian travel that
can result from wider roads and increased motor vehilce traffic volumes and
speeds.
|
Involvement
of pedestrians in traffic is a major consideration in highway planning and
design. Pedestrians are a part of every roadway environment, and attention
must be paid to their presence in rural as well as urban areas. The urban
pedestrian, being far more prevalent, more often influences roadway design
features than the rural pedestrian does. Because of the demands of vehicular
traffic in congested urban areas, it is often extremely difficult to make
adequate provisions for pedestrians. Yet this must be done, because
pedestrians are the lifeblood of our urban areas, especially in the downtown
and other retail areas. In general, the most successful shopping sections are
those that provide the most comfort and pleasure for pedestrians. Policy
On Geometric Design Of Highways And Streets – American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (www.aashto.org),
1994. |
These modes provide both recreation (they are an end in themselves) and transportation (they provide access to goods and activities), although users may consider a particular trip to serve both (users choose a nonmotorized mode, although it takes longer, because they enjoy the activity).
Pedestrian facilities (sidewalks and paths) must accommodate many uses and types of users. People walk alone, in groups, walk pets, push strollers and carts, run, skate, stop to gaze and talk, play and eat on sidewalks and paths. Many paths also accommodate scooters and bicycles. Different uses and users require different amounts of space. Although a person walking alone may only need 18-24 inches of width, other users and uses require more space. A couple walking side-by-side, a person in a wheelchair or pushing a cart, a runner or bicyclist all require more space. In addition, sidewalks and paths contain various types of “furniture” such as signposts, parking meters, mail boxes, garbage cans and sometimes café seating. When people pass each other or an object on the path, they require adequate shy distance. Although a sidewalk or path may have a generous nominal width, its functional width may be much smaller due to various types of obstacles within its right-of-way. A sidewalk or path should be designed and Managed to accommodate various uses and users, taking into account actual uses and conditions.
|
Defining “Walkable
Community” By Dan Burden of Walkable
Communities (www.walkable.org). A “walkable community” is
designed for people, to human scale, emphasizing people over cars, promoting
safe, secure, balanced, mixed, vibrant, successful, healthful, enjoyable and
comfortable walking, bicycling and human association. It is a community that
returns rights to people, looks out especially for children, seniors and
people with disabilities and takes aggressive action to reduce the negative
impacts of sixty-plus years of auto-centric design and uncivil driving
practices. It is also a community that emphasizes economic recovery of
central neighborhoods, promotes the concepts of recovering and transforming
suburban sprawl into meaningful villages, and especially takes ownership and
action to protect and preserving open space. A walkable community, like
a livable community, smart growth community, or sustainable community, makes
a neighborhood, hamlet, village, town, city or metropolis into a place where
many people walk, ride bicycles and use transit, and where anyone who drives
a car moderates their behavior in a way where they take nothing from the
rights of those who wish to stay healthy and active by taking part in
activities outside the car. A walkable community is
one that is old, historic, well worn, restored sensibly and worthy of
protection. A walkable community is one that is compact, new, fresh, invigorating
and teaming with people enjoying their streets, parks, plazas, buildings and
other physical space. |
Walkability improvements are usually implemented by local governments, sometimes with funding and technical support of regional or state/provincial transportation agencies. It usually begins with Nonmotorized Planning to identify problems and prioritize projects (Litman, et al., 2000; Nabors, et a., 2007). Implementation may require special funds, either shifting funds within existing transportation, a new budget allocation, or grants.
Some Walkability Improvements involve land use, street design and community livability features that create communities that are more attractive for walking, but are not necessarily considered pedestrian improvements. For example, improved roadway Connectivity benefits motorists and cyclists as well as pedestrians.
Walkability improvements can substitute directly for automobile trips. Walking improvements also support Public Transit and Ridesharing. A relatively short nonmotorized trip often substitutes for a longer car trip. For example, a shopper might choose between walking to a small local store, and driving a longer distance to shop at a supermarket. Walkability improvements are critical to Smart Growth, New Urbanism, and Transit Oriented Development, which can result in significant reductions in per-capita motor vehicle trips (Land Use Impacts on Transportation).
Loukopoulos and Gärling (2005)
find that on average people will drive rather than walk for a distance over
1,236 meters, with higher walking thresholds for women, and people who
frequently walk, and lower values for more difficult walking conditions and
people who frequently drive. The authors conclude that improving walking
conditions and marketing campaigns can decrease the frequency of short
automobile trips.
Communities that improve nonmotorized travel conditions often experience significant increases in nonmotorized travel and related reductions in vehicle travel (PBQD, 2000). One study found that residents in a pedestrian friendly community walked, bicycled, or rode transit for 49% of work trips and 15% of their non-work trips, 18- and 11-percentage points more than residents of a comparable automobile oriented community (Cervero and Radisch, 1995). Another study found that walking is three times more common in a community with pedestrian friendly streets than in otherwise comparable communities that are less conducive to foot travel (Moudon, et al, 1996).
International studies find significant differences in non-motorized travel patterns, as illustrated in the table below. High levels of non-motorized travel in such geographically diverse communities, and lower levels in otherwise similar areas, indicate that transport policies and community attitudes are more important than geography or climate in determining nonmotorized travel.
Table 1 Mode
|
|
Car |
Transit |
Cycling |
Walking |
Other |
|
|
39% |
13% |
9% |
31% |
8% |
|
|
74% |
14% |
1% |
10% |
1% |
|
|
42% |
14% |
20% |
21% |
3% |
|
|
54% |
12% |
4% |
30% |
0% |
|
|
52% |
11% |
10% |
27% |
0% |
|
|
44% |
8% |
27% |
19% |
1% |
|
|
36% |
11% |
10% |
39% |
4% |
|
|
38% |
20% |
10% |
29% |
3% |
|
|
62% |
14% |
8% |
12% |
4% |
|
|
84% |
3% |
1% |
9% |
2% |
The amount of walking and cycling varies significantly from one city to another.
Many communities have significant latent demand for
pedestrian travel, that is, people would walk more frequently if they had
suitable facilities and resources. One
Table 2 Active
Transportation Survey Findings
(Environics, 1998)
|
|
Cycle |
Walk |
|
Currently use this mode for leisure and recreation. |
48% |
85% |
|
Currently use this mode for transportation. |
24% |
58% |
|
Would like to use this mode more frequently. |
66% |
80% |
|
Would cycle to work if there “were a dedicated bike lane which would take me to my workplace in less than 30 minutes at a comfortable pace.” |
70% |
NA |
|
Support for additional government spending on bicycling facilities. |
82% |
NA |
This survey indicates a high level of interest in cycling and walking.
Some TDM studies conclude that walking improvements have little impact on overall vehicle travel (Comsis, 1993; Apogee, 1994), because they only consider commute trips that can shift directly to nonmotorized modes, with no changes in destinations or land use, and no recognition that walkability improvements are important for increasing Transit and Rideshare travel. Potential travel impacts are much greater if Pedestrian Improvements are part of Smart Growth development practices that increase Accessibility, for example, by locating schools and shops within residential neighborhoods. Walkability improvements around worksites can increase transit and rideshare use, because without these employees may feel the need to have a car to run errands during breaks.
Travel surveys and traffic counts usually under-record nonmotorized trips, because they ignore or undercount short trips, non-work travel, travel by children, recreational travel, and nonmotorized links (BTS, 2000). For example, trips that are classified as “auto” or “transit” trips are often actually “walk-auto-walk,” or “walk-bus-walk” trips, yet the walking component is not usually counted, even if it takes place on a roadway. One study found that the actual number of nonmotorized trips is six times greater than what conventional surveys indicate (Rietveld, 2000). In 2000, the Southern California Metropolitan Transportation Authority increased the portion of nonmotorized travel in their models from about 2% of regional trips (based on conventional travel surveys) up to about 10% (based on more comprehensive travel data from the 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey).
In recent years several evaluation tools have been developed to predict demand for pedestrian travel, evaluate walking conditions and predict the effects of walkability improvements (Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport).
Table 3 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
2 |
|
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
2 |
|
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
3 |
|
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
1 |
Supports higher-density,
mixed land use. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
0 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
2 |
Pedestrian access affects
public transit use. |
|
Increased cycling. |
3 |
|
|
Increased walking. |
3 |
|
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
|
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Nonmotorized transportation provides a number of benefits and costs.
Improved
nonmotorized transport conditions increase travel choice and mobility, which
particularly benefits non-drivers. Walking tends to be one of the most Affordable transportation modes. People who are
transportation disadvantaged often rely heavily on nonmotorized transportation,
for trips made entirely by walking, and to access transit. Pedestrian
transportation provides Basic Mobility, particularly Universal Design improvements.
Shifts
from driving to walking can reduce congestion, road and parking facility costs,
consumer costs, and pollution emissions (Litman, 1999). It can be particularly
effective at reducing many costs because it most often substitutes for short
automobile trips in higher density urban areas where the per-mile costs of
driving tend to be highest. Nonmotorized transportation supports other
alternative modes (public transit and ridesharing), and Smart
Growth land use objectives, including higher density, mixed-use development
to increase access, and reduce per capita pavement.
Although
nonmotorized modes have relatively high per mile casualty rate, this is offset
by reduced risk to other road users, and by the fact that pedestrians and
cyclists tend to travel less overall than motorists. International research
suggests that shifts to nonmotorized transport result in overall increases in Road Safety. For example, the
There
is some debate over the safety benefits of some pedestrian improvement
strategies, particularly marked crosswalks (Zegeer, et al, 2004). In response,
some communities are taking measures to insure that such facilities are
designed to maximize safety (Hefferan and Lagerwey, 2004).
Streets
that are attractive, safe and suitable for walking are a key factor in
community livability. Pedestrian-friendly streets create opportunities for
people to meet and interact, helping to create community networks.
Many
people enjoy walking and the healthy exercise it provides. Walking is one of
the most common forms of physical recreation. Some people argue that
transportation funding should not be spent on recreational walking facilities,
yet a significant portion of motor vehicle travel is for recreation. It makes
no sense to refuse funding for a path, yet fund roadway capacity so motorists
can drive to a healthclub where they walk a treadmill or pedal a stationary
bike. This suggests that both transportation and recreational funding can be
devoted to nonmotorized improvements.
In
several case studies, improving walking conditions in a community significantly
increased retail sales and property values (LGC, 2001).
Costs
are generally associated with program expenses and facility improvements.
Table 4 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
2 |
Reduces automobile use. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
3 |
Reduces automobile use. |
|
Consumer Savings |
3 |
Provides affordable
mobility. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Increases travel choices. |
|
Road Safety |
3 |
Reduces automobile use.
Also provides health benefits. |
|
Environmental Impacts |
3 |
Reduces automobile use,
particularly high-polluting short trips. |
|
Land Use Impacts |
3 |
Supports higher-density
development. |
|
Community Livability |
3 |
Reduces motor vehicle
traffic and increases local access. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Since nearly everybody walks, walkability improvements can benefit nearly everybody, although some people benefit more than others from a particular policy or project. Walkability improvements in general, and Universal Design improvements in particular, are particularly important for providing Basic Access and insuring opportunity to who are transportation disadvantaged. Grayling, et al (2001) show that pedestrian safety improvements are particularly beneficial to economically and socially disadvantaged communities.
Improving walking conditions often requires public resources (money and land devoted to sidewalks and paths), but these costs are usually less than the public costs of an automobile trip. Litman (1998) describes how people who drive less than average overpay their share of local transportation expenditures, since their local taxes fund roadway expenses that are primarily needed for the sake of automobile traffic, so increased funding for nonmotorized transportation is often justified for the sake of horizontal equity. Lower-income and transportation disadvantaged people often rely heavily on nonmotorized transportation, and so benefit significantly by nonmotorized improvements. Pedestrian transportation is often critical for providing Basic Mobility.
Table 5 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |
3 |
Almost everybody walks. |
|
Individuals bear the costs
they impose. |
2 |
Requires public resources,
but usually less than costs for automobile trips. |
|
Progressive with respect to
income. |
3 |
Lower income people often
rely on walking. |
|
Benefits transportation
disadvantaged. |
3 |
Transport disadvantaged
often rely on walking. |
|
Improves basic mobility. |
3 |
Walking provides basic
mobility. |
Rating from 3 (very
beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Nonmotorized transportation improvements are particularly important in areas with high levels of walking and cycling, higher-density commercial and residential areas, and resort areas. Universal Design improvements are particularly important in areas where people with disabilities frequently travel. Nonmotorized improvements are provided primarily by regional and local governments, sometimes with federal and state/provincial support. Businesses can provide sidewalks and other walkability improvements.
Table 6 Application Summary
|
Geographic |
Rating |
Organization |
Rating |
|
Large urban region. |
3 |
Federal government. |
1 |
|
High-density, urban. |
3 |
State/provincial
government. |
2 |
|
Medium-density,
urban/suburban. |
3 |
Regional government. |
2 |
|
Town. |
3 |
Municipal/local government. |
3 |
|
Low-density, rural. |
2 |
Business Associations/TMA. |
3 |
|
Commercial center. |
3 |
Individual business. |
2 |
|
Residential neighborhood. |
3 |
Developer. |
3 |
|
Resort/recreation area. |
3 |
Neighborhood association. |
3 |
|
|
|
Campus. |
3 |
Ratings range from 0 (not
appropriate) to 3 (very appropriate).
Improves Transport Choice
Nonmotorized Planning and Managing Nonmotorized Facilities are often the first step toward improving walkability. Pedestrian transportation supports most other TDM strategies, particularly Transit and Ridesharing, and Smart Growth. Universal Design means that nonmotorized transportation improvements accommodate a wide range of users, including people with disabilities. It is supported by Commute Trip Reduction programs, Parking Management, Transportation Access Guides, Traffic Calming, New Urbanism, and Transit Oriented Development. Least Cost Planning and Institutional Reforms can help increase public support for non-motorized transport improvements. Address Security Concerns can be an important part of improving walkability.
Pedestrian transportation improvements are usually implemented by local or regional governments, sometimes with state or provincial transportation agency support. Some measures, such as sidewalks and paths, are partly implemented by businesses and developers.
Walkability improvements are often limited by professional practices and funding that favors motorized modes, and development practices that result in lower-density, single-use land use patterns.
|
Walkability
Performance Indicators By
Dan Burden of Walkable Communities (www.walkable.org)
1.
What portion of children walk to school on a pleasant day? This
is easily performed by surveying students in school. The survey is repeated
each year on a similar day with similar weather conditions. This indicator
shows whether favored modes of home-to-school travel is increasing
or decreasing. 2. What
is the furthest distance pedestrians must walk to cross a major
commercial street, school zone, and any other streets worthy of
monitoring at a designated crossing? This
is easily performed, conducted with aerial maps and field surveys. This can
also often be done with volunteer support, perhaps with a staff person
providing materials and guidance. 3. What
percentage of pedestrians make legal crossings of key intersections,
particularly on major commercial streets and school access routes? This
can be performed with field surveys conducted during prime walking hours, in
which observers evaluate and record pedestrian crossing behavior. 4.
What percentage of motorists drive appropriate speeds on key streets,
particularly on major commercial streets and school access routes. This
should focus on whether traffic speeds are appropriate for adjacent land use
and ambient conditions, not simply whether they reflect posted speed
limits. As a general guide, commercial districts, schools
and parks should be located on streets with 25 mph maximum speeds. 5.
What number and percentage of unescorted children, older people, and people
with disabilities are seen on commercial streets? This
qualitative measure indicates how comfortable, friendly, safe, secure and
welcoming streets feels to vulnerable people. Such surveys can be conducted
at various times and with various weather conditions. 6.
What number of people walk or ride bikes across key bridges, or other choke
points into downtown during a 2 hour period? This
is a helpful indicator of how walking and bicycling are increasing or
decreasing in mode share. This survey should be performed during both peak
and off-peak periods. Counts should indicate the portion of unescorted
children, older people, and people with disabilities using the. 7. What number and diversity of people walk or ride bikes through an important trail junction during a two hour period? This
is a helpful indicator of the usefulness and quality of nonmotorized
facilities. This survey should be performed during both peak and off-peak
periods. Counts should indicate the portion of unescorted children, older
people, and people with disabilities using the. |
A number of guides and resources including ADONIS (1998), Litman, et al. (2000), Zeeger, et al (2002) and GDOT (2003) provide information on best practices for improving walkability and encouraging walking (Nonmotorized Planning). These include:
· Integrate nonmotorized
planning into all transport and land use planning activities.
· Educate all transportation
professionals in nonmotorized transportation planning principles.
· Fund nonmotorized planning
at a comparable rate as other travel modes.
· Insure that all roadways are
suitable for walking unless it is specifically prohibited and suitable
alternatives are available.
· Use current planning
practices and design standards, including Universal Design.
· Include nonmotorized travel
in transportation surveys and models.
· Create pedestrian-oriented
centers and neighborhoods.
· Perform user surveys to
identify problems and barriers to pedestrian travel.
· Use Traffic
Calming and other traffic control measures to make street environments
safer and more pleasant for walking.
|
Wayfinding Is Not Signage: Signage Plays An Important Part Of
Wayfinding – But There's More By John Muhlhausen, Signs of the Times magazine Even though signage plays an important role in wayfinding, the process doesn't rely exclusively on signs. The term "wayfinding" was first used in 1960 by architect Kevin Lynch in The Image of the City, where he referred to maps, street numbers, directional signs and other elements as "way-finding" devices. This narrow description may explain the current misunderstanding that wayfinding is essentially the same as "signage." The two terms are not synonymous. Signmakers deal with designing, fabricating and installing signs. However, wayfinding used to navigate unfamiliar environments, doesn't rely exclusively on signs. This distinction gained acceptance in the early '70s when researchers discovered that, to understand how people find their way, they first need to understand the underlying process. Architect and environmental psychologist Romedi Passini articulated spatial problem-solving in his books, Wayfinding in Architecture and Wayfinding, People, Signs and Architecture, which he co-authored with wayfinding planner Paul Arthur. Passini and Arthur described wayfinding as a two-stage process during which people must solve a wide variety of problems in architectural and urban spaces that involve both "decision making" (formulating an action plan) and "decision executing" (implementing the plan). People who find themselves in unfamiliar environments need to know where they actually are in the complex, the layout of the complex, and the location of their destination in order to formulate their action plans. En route to their chosen destinations, people are helped or hindered prior to their visit, the building's architecture and signage. The physical environment, including positive effect in how users perceive the wayfinding system--if it seems easy to use or not. Faulty sign design can cause navigation problems in unfamiliar environments. Some signs lack "conspicuity," or visibility, because lettering lacks legibility when viewed from a distance. Others contain inaccurate, ambiguous or unfamiliar messages; many are obscured by obstructions or contain reflective surfaces, which hinder comprehension. Consequently, many people don't read signs--often it's easier to ask for directions. Because wayfinding problems aren't confined to signs alone, they typically can't be solved by adding more signs. Instead, such problems can be unraveled by designing an environment that identifies logical traffic patterns that enable people to move easily from one spot to another without confusion. Signs cannot be a panacea for poor architecture and illogical space planning. Four Elements Wayfinding needs are best resolved during initial planning stages through a collaborative effort by all design professionals--architects, designers and signmakers--to address a project's total environmental communication. The primary generator of environmental communication, architecture delineates spatial organization, destination zones and information sequencing--factors that spell wayfinding's success or failure. Effective architectural wayfinding clues, provided by roads, building layouts, corridors and lighting, furnish cognitive maps that allow people to quickly grasp the environment. To furnish architectural clues: · Clearly identify arrival points. · Provide convenient parking and accessible walkways located adjacent to each public entry. · Locate information desks within each public entry visible from the front door. · Place elevator lobbies so they can be seen upon entering the building. · Use consistent lighting, floor coverings and architectural finishes in primary public corridor systems. · Situate memorable landmarks along corridors and at key decision points. · Design public waiting areas that are visually open to corridors. · Distinguish public from non-public corridors by using varied finishes, colors and lighting · Harmonize floor numbers between connecting buildings. Graphic Communication Graphics, such as signs, color coding, maps, banners, brochures and Websites, provide orientation, direction, identification and regulatory information. To achieve effective graphic communication: · Standardize names for all buildings, services and destinations, and display them consistently on all graphics applications. · Use easily understood "plain" language. · Size messages and signs appropriately for viewing distances. · Select letterforms and color combinations that comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Accessibility Guidelines (see New Face to ADA). · Furnish generous spacing between letters, words and message lines. · Provide standardized "you are here" maps of the project that include an overall map of the complex and more detailed maps of specific areas. · Train attendants to mark individualized paths on hand-held maps for lost or disoriented visitors. · Place maps at all parking exits, building entrances and major interior decision points. · Orient maps with building layouts, such as denoting on maps that "up is ahead." · Establish consistency in sign placements and graphics layouts. · Code areas by using color and memorable graphics. · Use established pictographs with words to facilitate comprehension of written messages. · Establish a floor numbering system that relates to a building's main entry and indicate on directories which floors are above and below grade. Audible Communication Audible communication, as interpreted through verbal instructions, PA systems, elevator chimes and water fountains, plays an important role in wayfinding. Recognizing that 50% of the American population is functionally illiterate (according to a recent study published by the U.S. Department of Education) and that another 15% possess other perceptual or cognitive impairments, audible communication fills an important role in any wayfinding solution. To establish effective audible communication: · Install audible sounds at signaled intersections to indicate safe times to cross the street. · At all public entries and information desks, provide attendants trained as professional greeters who are thoroughly familiar with the facility. · Furnish self-help telephones at all information desks. · Provide patient-transport personnel whose purpose is to guide visitors to their destinations. · Standardize names for all buildings, services and destinations, and use them consistently in verbal communication. · Equip elevators with audible chimes. · Position audible landmarks, such as water fountains, at waiting areas. · Employ audible signs to help locate information desks, elevators, rest rooms and other key destinations. Tactile Communication Tactile communication, achieved by raised letters, Braille, knurled door knobs and textured floor coverings assists all visitors, not only the disabled. To incorporate tactual devices into a wayfinding system: · Establish "shorelines" and "trails" between major destinations and information areas using materials having differing resiliency's, such as concrete and carpet. · Install "rumble strips" at the landings of stairs and escalators. · Furnish knurled door knobs at all non-public doors. · Provide a raised star symbol on elevator control panels to indicated the ground floor. · Supply raised letters and Grade 2 Braille at elevators and on signs identifying permanent destinations. · Install interactive audio-tactile maps at public entrance lobbies. Consistent Clues Architects, designers and signmakers must work together from the beginning of a project to create a total environmental statement that provides consistent clues. So, the next time a client asks for wayfinding signage. tell them that wayfinding is not signage – it's more. |
The
City of
The Pedestrian Road Safety Audit Guidelines and
Prompt Lists describes various methods that can be used to evaluate walkability as
part of a road safety audit (RSA) performed by transportation engineers and
planners. This process can identify potential barriers and problems to walking,
and opportunities to improve walking conditions.
Marie
Demers’s book Walk For Your Life! Restoring Neighborhood Walkways To Enhance
Community Life, Improve Street Safety and Reduce Obesity, provides an
excellent introduction to issues related to why and how to increase
nonmotorized transportation. It can help planners and policy makers understand
the importance of increased walking and cycling, help health professionals
understand how this can be done, and encourage individuals to take more steps
each day. The writing is interesting and personal, with numerous quotes and
facts (did you know that obesity is spreading to pets: she claims that the
portion of pets that are overweight increased from 15% a decade ago to 40%,
resulting in diabetes, hypertension and cardiac problems), and includes
detailed references and an extensive list of information resources.
The book discusses various reasons that individuals and communities should
improve walking conditions and encourage walking activity, and describes
various ways of doing this. It emphasizes public health (particularly reduced
obesity and increased physical fitness), community livability (including
community cohesion) and personal enjoyment benefits, as well environmental and
equity benefits. It describes various policy and planning reforms to help
create more walkable communities, particularly new urbanism. It is not as
technically detailed as some recent academic books, such as Howard Frumkin,
Lawrence Frank and Richard Jackson, Urban Sprawl and Public Health:
Designing, Planning, and Building For Healthier Communities (2004), but it
is more accessible to a general audience.
A study of people crossing urban intersections found
that pedestrians
over the age of 65, children
hand-assisted by adults, people with physical disabilities, and groups of two
or more pedestrians cross slower on average than the 4.0 feet-per-second (ft/s)
walking speed standard commonly used for crosswalks and other pedestrian
facilities. Based on this study the researchers recommend the following:
The Esquimalt,
The
main objective of
Actions
aimed at inducing alternative use of conventional transport modes have included
the introduction of the 'Buxi' mini-bus operating as a privately-run collective
taxi for central neighbourhoods; the introduction of the 'Telebus' serving an
urban corridor to peripheral zones of the conurbation; and the introduction of
a computer-based traffic and safety management system.
The
pedestrian network has proven popular. Most trips to the city centre are made
on foot. The escalators, which provide comfortable and continuous route ways,
are the most popular. The elevators, which serve discontinuous route ways, are
also generally accepted. Studies have shown that 50% of the local population in
The
City has adopted a two-part plan: Part One outlines the policies and plans for
improving conditions for walking and Part Two is a detailed design manual for
pedestrian facilities. The Portland
Pedestrian Design Guide and Pedestrian
Master Plan (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us)
are outstanding pedestrian planning resources. It developed an excellent
process for prioritizing pedestrian improvements, taking into account demand
and current conditions.
The City
of
Adopted
in September 1997,
Washington
State Department of Transportation adopted a Pedestrian Policy Plan in 1993
that focused on local and regional planning for pedestrians, necessary
pedestrian facility types and locations, and who should pay for them.
The
Oregon Department of Transportation has established a comprehensive pedestrian
planning and design document.
Many
European cities have become increasingly pedestrianized, including car-free
commercial districts in older downtowns, and woonerf residential streets (in
Dutch, woon means “residential” and erf means “yard) where
vehicles traffic is slowed to walking speeds. In the
In the
The following is the summary of a national policy for walking. The full document includes specific objectives and actions to insure that walking achieves its full potential social benefits.
Walkable
Walkable
A Walkable Australia is
consistent with sound economic as well as social and environmental policy.
Walkable communities spend less of their economic output on transport, and
waste less time on unproductive travel. Urban infrastructure costs are reduced,
and less land is paved over. A greater variety and depth of natural and
cultural experience is found within a given area. With a healthier and more
active community, health costs are lower. The elderly and incapacitated are
within closer reach of the facilities they need, and more able to reach them
through better public and emergency transport.
|
Why does your nose run, and your feet smell? |
ADONIS (1999), Best Practice to Promote Cycling and Walking and How to Substitute Short Car Trips by Cycling and Walking, ADONIS Transport RTD Program, European Union (www.cordis.lu/transport/src/adonisrep.htm), 1999. This 300-page catalogue describes dozens of strategies to help improve and encourage walking and cycling, ranging from special facilities, to safety campaigns and traffic management to facilitate street crossing.
Alta Planning + Design (2005), Caltrans Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities Technical Reference Guide: A Technical Reference and Technology Transfer Synthesis for Caltrans Planners and Engineers, California Department of Transportation (www.dot.ca.gov/hq/traffops/survey/pedestrian/TR_MAY0405.pdf).
Apogee (1994), Costs and Cost Effectiveness of Transportation Control Measures; A Review and Analysis of the Literature, National Association of Regional Councils (www.narc.org).
Timothy Beatley (2000), Green Urbanism; Learning from European Cities, Island Press (www.islandpress.com).
Beneficial Designs, Inc. et al. (1999), Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access; Part 1, Review of Existing Guidelines and Practices, Publication No. FHWA-HEP-99-006; Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access; Part 2, Best Practice Design Guide, Publication No. FHWA-EP-01-027, Federal Highway Administration, USDOT (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped), 2001.
BTS, Pedestrian and Cycling Publications, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, USDOT, (www.bts.gov/NTL/subjects/ped-bike.html).
Dan Burden (2003), How Can I Find and Help Build a Walkable Community?, Walkable Communities (www.walkable.org/article1.htm).
Bushwack
Sally
CDC (2004), Worksite Walkability: Are Your Employees Walking at Work?, Center for Disease Control (www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpa/walkability). Includes a Worksite Walkability Audit Tool.
Robert Cervero and Carolyn Radisch (1995), Travel Choices in Pedestrian Versus Automobile Oriented Neighborhoods, UC Transportation Center, UCTC 281 (www.uctc.net).
Complete Streets (www.completestreets.org) is a campaign to promote roadway designs that effectively accommodate multiple modes and support local planning objectives.
Comsis Corporation (1993), Implementing Effective Travel Demand Management Measures: Inventory of
Measures and Synthesis of Experience, USDOT and
CTR (2001), Recreational Trails Program: Report On
State Trail Projects, Coalition for Recreational Trails (CRT) and Federal
Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sttrail.htm). Includes a database with statistics on public trails
throughout the
Marie Demers (2006), Walk For Your Life! Restoring Neighborhood Walkways To Enhance Community Life, Improve Street Safety and Reduce Obesity, Vital Health Publishing (www.vitalhealthbooks.com/book/2414947630.html).
DETR (2000), Walking Bibliography, Department of Environment, Transport and Regions, (www.roads.detr.gov.uk/roadnetwork/ditm/tal/index.htm).
Linda Dixon (1996), “Bicycle and Pedestrian Level-of-Service Performance Measures and Standards for Congestion Management Systems,” Transportation Research Record 1538, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 1-9.
Environics (1998), National Survey on Active Transportation, Go for Green, (www.goforgreen.ca).
Reid Ewing, Otto Clemente, Susan Handy, Emily Winston and Ross C. Brownson (2005), Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability: Measurement Instrument for Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Active Living Research Program (http://activelivingresearch.org/index.php/357).
FHWA (2000), Walkable Community; Your Town USA, FHWA-SA-00-010, USDOT (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/programs/ped_bike.htm).
FHWA (1998), Guidelines for Installing Sidewalks, Federal Highway Administration (www.fhwa.dot.gov/safety/community/pdf/Guide_Sidewalks.pdf), Based on ITE, Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities, Institute of Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org).
FHWA (2008), A Resident's Guide for Creating Safe and
Walkable Communities, Federal Highway
Administration Office of Safety; FHWA-SA-07-016 (http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov); at http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/ped_bike/ped/ped_walkguide.
FHWA, Pedestrian Safety Roadshow (www.ota.fhwa.dot.gov/walk) provides information on pedestrian safety.
Tim J. Gates, David A. Noyce, and Andrea R. Bill (2006), Are We Getting Slower? Updated Recommended Walking Speeds for Pedestrian Signal Timing, ITE Annual Meeting (www.ite.org).
GDOT (2006), Georgia Guidebook for Pedestrian Planning, Georgia Department of Transportation (www.dot.state.ga.us).
Tony Grayling, Karl Hallam, Daniel Graham, Richard Anderson & Stephen Glaister (2002), Streets Ahead: Safe and Livable Streets for Children, Institute for Public Policy Research, (www.ippr.org).
Jennifer R. Hefferan and Peter Lagerwey (2004), “City of Seattle, WA, USA, Crosswalk Inventory and Improvement Plan,” ITE Journal, Vol. 74, No. 1, January 2004, pp. 34-41.
Mayer Hillman (1998), Curbing Shorter Car Journeys: Prioritising the Alternatives, Friends of the Earth (www.foe.co.uk).
Mayer Hillman (2001), A Continuous Pedestrian Network, Walking the 21st Century (www.dpi.wa.gov.au/metro/gettingthere/walking/pdfs/K1.pdf).
HSRC (2000), Pedestrian and Bicycle Crash Analysis
Tool (PBCAT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), available free from the Pedestrian and
International Federation of Pedestrians (www.pedestrians-int.org) is an independent organization that promotes walking and defends pedestrian rights.
ITE (2001), Alternative Treatments for At-Grade Pedestrian Crossings,
ITE (206), Context
Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable
Communities, Proposed Recommended Practice, Institute of
Transportation Engineers (www.ite.org);
available at www.ite.org/bookstore/RP036.pdf.
Less Traffic (www.lesstraffic.com) provides information on traffic reduction and Street Reclaiming strategies.
LGC (2001), The Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities, Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org).
Todd Litman (2003), “Economic Value of Walkability,” Transportation Research Record 1828, TRB (www.trb.org), pp. 3-11; available at www.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf.
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 (2004), Quantifying the Benefits of Non-Motorized Transport for Achieving TDM Objectives, Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org); available at www.vtpi.org/nmt-tdm.pdf.
Todd Litman (2005), Whose Roads? Evaluating Bicyclists’ and Pedestrians’ Right to Use Public Roadways, VTPI (www.vtpi.org); available at www.vtpi.org/whoserd.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; based on 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.
Todd Litman, et al (2000), Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning; A Guide to Best Practices, VTPI (www.vtpi.org). Comprehensive guide with extensive references.
Living Streets (www.livingstreets.org.uk), formerly
called the Pedestrians Association, works in the
Local Government Commission (www.lgc.org) has a variety of useful resources for neighborhood planning and pedestrian improvements, including “Designing Safe Streets and Neighborhoods”, “The Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities" and “Why People Don't Walk and What City Planners Can Do About It” fact sheets.
Peter Loukopoulos and Tommy Gärling (2005), Are Car Users too Lazy to Walk? The Relation
of Distance Thresholds for Driving to the Perceived Effort of Walking, TRB 84th Annual Meeting (www.trb.org).
Frank Markowitz, Stanley Sciortino, Jack Lucero Fleck and Bond M. Lee (2006), “Pedestrian Countdown Signals: Experience With An Extensive Pilot Installation,” ITE Journal, Vol. 76, No. 1 (www.ite.org), January 2006, pp. 43-48.
Anne Vernez Moudon, et al (1996), Effects of Site Design on Pedestrian Travel
in Mixed Use, Medium-Density Environments,
Anne Vernez Moudon, et al (2003), Strategies and Tools to Implement Transportation-Efficient Development: A Reference Manual, Washington State Department of Transportation, WA-RD 574.1 (http://depts.washington.edu/trac/bulkdisk/pdf/574.1.pdf).
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).
Dan Nabors,
et al. (2007), Pedestrian Road Safety
Audit Guidelines and Prompt Lists, Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (www.pedbikeinfo.org),
Federal Highway Administration Office of Safety; at http://drusilla.hsrc.unc.edu/cms/downloads/PedRSA%20-%20FINAL%20-%20high-quality.pdf.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) Walking Safety website (www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/outreach/safesobr/OPlanner/ncpsw/walk1.html) provides information on pedestrian safety issues.
Oregon DOT Bicycle and Pedestrian Planning (www.odot.state.or.us/techserv/bikewalk/obpplan.htm) shows nonmotorized planning at its best.
Partnership for a Walkable
PBIC, Image Library (www.pedbikeimages.org),
by the Pedestrian and
PBQD
(2000), Data Collection and
Modeling Requirements for Assessing Transportation Impacts of Micro-Scale
Design, Transportation Model Improvement Program, USDOT (www.bts.gov/tmip).
Pedestrians Association (www.pedestrians.org.uk) campaigns on all aspects of pedestrian welfare.
Portland Office of Transportation (1998), Portland Pedestrian Design Guide, and Pedestrian Master Plan, Pedestrian Transportation Program, City of Portland (www.trans.ci.portland.or.us).
John Pucher and Christian Lefevre (1996), The
Urban Transportation Crisis in Europe and North America, MacMillan Press (
John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra (2000), “Making
Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from
PWA (2000), How Walkable is Your Community? Partnership for a Walkable America (www.nsc.org/walk/wkcheck.htm).
Piet Rietveld (2000), “Nonmotorized Modes in
Transport Systems: A Multimodal Chain Perspective for The
W.L. Schwartz, et al (1999), Guidebook on Methods to Estimate NonMotorized Travel: Overview of Methods.
STPP (2003), Americans Attitudes Toward Walking and Creating More Walkable Communities, Surface Transportation Policy Project (www.transact.org).
Walkable Communities (www.walkable.org) helps create people-oriented environments.
Walkable Places Project (www.walkableplaces.org) provides resources to help non-experts evaluate barriers and opportunities for walking.
WalkScore (www.walkscore.com) calculates the walkability of a location based on proximity to public services such as stores, schools and parks.
Walking Steering Group (1996), Developing a Walking Strategy, UK Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions (www.dtlr.gov.uk).
WalkIt: The Walking Resources Database (www.walkit.info) provides extensive resources for pedestrian planning in urban development, local transport, health and recreation.
WSDOT (1997), Pedestrian Facilities Guidebook: Incorporating Pedestrians Into Washington’s Transportation System, Washington State Department of Transportation (www.wsdot.wa.gov).
WTPP (2001), World Transport Policy and Practice – Special Pedestrian Planning Issue, Volume 7, Number 4 (www.ecoplan.org/wtpp/wt_index.htm). Articles on ways to improve walkability and encourage pedestrian transportation.
Zeeger, et al (2002), Pedestrian Facilities User
Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility, Pedestrian and
Zegeer, et al. (2004), “Safety Effects of Marked Versus Unmarked Crosswalks in 30 Cities,” ITE Journal, Vol. 74, No. 1, January 2004, pp. 34-41; also available at the University of North Carolina Highway Safety Research Center (www.walkinginfo.org/rd/devices.htm), 2001.
Charles V. Zegeer, et al (2006), How
to Develop a Pedestrian Safety Action Plan, Federal Highway Administration,
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center (www.walkinginfo.org),
2006
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.
Victoria Transport Policy Institute
www.vtpi.org info@vtpi.org
Phone & Fax 250-360-1560
#92