sustainable streets, sustainable...
TRANSCRIPT
Sustainable Streets,
Sustainable Transportation
Presentation to the Stanford Sustainable Transportation Seminar
March 1, 2013
Adjunct faculty member and Visiting Scholar, Stanford University Program on Urban Studies
Adjunct faculty member, San Jose State University Department of Urban & Regional Planning
Transportation planning consultant in the San Francisco Bay Area
Former Chief Transportation Official, City of Palo Alto
Streets of Clay, a doctoral dissertation completed in 2011 under the supervision of Prof. Jeff Kenworthy and Peter Newman co-authors of “Sustainable Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence”
Mixed methods research approach: comprehensive primary
and secondary data collection, focus groups, opinion surveys, and visual assessment surveys; extensive use of non-parametric statistics; included reflective practitioner perspectives
This presentation describes a portion of Streets of Clay findings, mostly those that pertain to pedestrians
“If we can develop and design streets so that they are wonderful, fulfilling places to be, community-building places, attractive public places for all people of cities and neighborhoods, then we will have successfully designed about one-third of the city directly and will have had an immense impact on the rest.” Allan Jacobs
“A sustainable arterial street gives priority to energy-efficient, low-emission or no-emission modes of transport; supports social and economic vitality; fosters traffic and social safety; incorporates natural elements; and creates visual interest for its users.”
5
6
7
9
10
11
12
13
Egregious Example of Conventional Arterial Street Purposes (Illustrative):
A traffic Sewer
Transport
Social/Cultural
Commercial
Nature
14
Conventional Arterial Street Purposes (illustrative):
Transport
Social/Cultural
Commercial
Nature
15
Sustainable Arterial Street Purposes (Illustrative)
Transport
Social/Cultural
Commercial
Nature
Pedestrian Space
High Speed Transport
Space
Traffic Calming Space
16
Link function
Place function
The degree or amount of each will vary with existing or planned urban/suburban context and
The urban and regional transport system as well as the land use structure within which a street fits
17
Urban Planning
•Land Use Density
•Land Use Mix
Transport Planning
•Multimodal Forecasts & System Planning
•Public Transport Operations
Traffic & Transport Engineering
•Motor Vehicle Operations
• Street Design
Urban
Design
•Streetscape•Street Design
Landscape Architecture
• Trees
• Landscaping
Public Health
•Individual
Physical Activity•Community
Physical
Activity
Motor Vehicle Speed & Volume, Truck Presence, Crash Data, # of Through Lanes, Traffic Control
Devices
Space Allocation to Nature: Trees,
Pervious Surface, "Green" Gaps
Space Allocation to Low Impact Travel Modes: Pedestrians,
Cyclists, Public Transport
Population & Employment
Density
Frontage Gaps, Vacant Parcels,
Windows & Doorways
Land Use Mix, Restaurant & Retail
FrontageBus & Rail Public
Transport Frequency, Stops,
Boardings
Active, Sustainable
Streets
Intersection Density, Pedestrian
Connections, Crosswalks, Buffers
from Traffic, Bike Storage, Outdoor
Seating
Pedestrian & Bicycle Volumes, People Sitting &
Standing, Pedestrian
Interactions
Street Users & Business
Assessment, Visual Assessment
Matched 1:2 comparison of one re-designed street with two control (not re-designed, but with similarities in function, characteristics)
Mixed methods approach, quantitative and qualitative
Two subsets of streets: “Big City Arterials” and “Small
City Main Streets”
Street sections range from approximately .3 to .6 miles (.5 to .8 kilometers) in length
What are “active” streets and how can “activity” on streets be measured?
To what extent does street design (geometry, partitioning of space) affect street use and, if so, how?
What are “complete streets” and how can “completeness” be measured?
How can the “sustainability” of urban commercial streets be assessed?
“Big City” Commercial Arterials:
King Street/The Embarcadero from 3rd to Brannan in San Francisco (.56 mi/.9 km/43,000 motor vehicles/day). Exemplar of a “Complete Street” Design
Lombard Street from Broderick to Fillmore in San
Francisco (.47 mi/.76 km/41,000 motor vehicles/day)
The Alameda from Race to Stockton in San Jose (.43 mi./.69 km/16,000 motor vehicles/day)
“Small City” Main Streets: Castro Street in Mountain View, CA from Church to
W. Evelyn (.52 mi/.84 km/15,500 AADT). Early US example of “Context Sensitive” Street
California Avenue in Palo Alto, CA from El Camino Real to W. Park (.31 mi/.49km/9,700 AADT)
San Carlos Avenue in San Carlos, CA from Cedar to El Camino Real (.35 mi/.56 km/20,000 AADT)
Pedestrian and bicycle volumes (along and crossing
street) Pedestrians standing, sitting Pedestrians interacting Café chair count Space allocation in ROW (to private vehicles, public
transit, pedestrians, bicycles, “nature”) On-line surveys (street users, merchants), focus
groups (one each street), visual assessment surveys Vehicle speed surveys, vehicle classification surveys
75
127
181
234
378
436
453
470
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500
TA
SC
LS
CA
KE
CS
CC
MC
CT
MT
Peds/Hour
Street Cohort/ Street
Comparing Study and Control Streets, Pedestrians Along and Across
17
29
38
47
209
76
168
260
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
SC
LS
TA
CA
KE
CS
CC
MC
CT
MT
Peds/Hour
Street Group/ Street
Comparing Study and Control Streets, Standing or Sitting Pedestrians
15
19
24
28
60
62
72
82
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
TA
SC
LS
CA
KE
CS
CC
MC
CT
MT
Peds/Hour
Street Group/ Street
Study and Control Streets, Pedestrian Interactions
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
KE LS TA CS CA SC
MV/POMV 5.27 10.84 7.93 1.14 1.10 9.56
Ratio
Ratio of Motor Vehicles to People out of Motor Vehicles
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
KE LS TA CS CA SC
MV/PTboard 8.88 26.62 52.35 28.71 52.72 136.99
Ratio
Ratio of Motor Vehicles to Transit Boardings
Traffic Signal Snapshot of Outcome Variables by Street
Metric Street
KE LS TA
CS CA SC
Pedestrians along
Pedestrians across
Total pedestrians
Pedestrian interactions
# People involved in interactions
Pedestrians standing
Pedestrian sitting
Stationary pedestrians
Pedestrian presence
Bicycles to/from/along
Bicycles across
Total bicycles
Total non-motorized volume
Daily transit boardings
Traffic Signal Snapshot of User Appraisal by Street
Metric Street
K
E
L
S
T
A
C
S
C
A
S
C
Very comfortable
Very safe
Very attractive
Very convenient
Very active
Very important
KE LS TA CS CA SC
PEDpres 3 4 6 1 2 5
ROWped 3 5 4 1 2 6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Rnnk
Rank Order Comparison
PEDpres
ROWped
Rank Order Comparison
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Rank PEDpres
RESTfront
PEDpres 3 4 6 1 2 5
RESTfront 4 3 6 1 2 5
KE LS TA CS CA SC
KE LS TA CS CA SC
PEDStotal or PEDint 2 4 6 1 3 5
PerSafe 3 6 5 1 2 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Rank
Peds or Ped Interactions & Perceived Safety
PEDStotal or PEDint
PerSafe
KE LS TA CS CA SC
PEDStotal or PEDint 2 4 6 1 3 5
Pcom 3 6 5 1 2 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Rank
Peds or Ped Interactions & Perceived Comfort
PEDStotal or PEDint
Pcom
“You think about how much of a street goes toward
cars versus pedestrians; when the sidewalk is really
narrow as a pedestrian you kind of feel like ‘we’re not
very important here’”.
Participant in San Carlos Avenue Focus Group
Allocation of Right of Way Matters
Allocation of ROW Space to Peds, Bikes, Transit Activates Streets
Rail Transit, Restaurants Also Activate Streets
Commercial Driveways De-Activate Streets
“Complete Streets”, “Context Sensitive Streets” can be Designed to be Active, Sustainable
Tertiary Supports
Secondary Influences
Primary Influences
•Urban design attributes
•Tree canopy
•Seating, bike storage
•Views
•District emp., pop.
•Regional transportation connections (esp. rail)
•Street network
•Occupied street front
•Street design, operation
•Space for peds, bikes
•Public transit capacity
•Pedestrian--generating land use
