Access for All: Guidance Note on Inclusive Street Design for Asia and the Pacific Final Report, December 2016 Preface
Acknowledgements
The guideline was conceived and the outline was built by Lloyd Wright, followed by additional research and written contributions by Melinda Hansion for Section I & III, Michael King for Section II, ITDP-China’s Liu Shaokun, Li Wei, Deng Han, Lin Xi for first-phase preparation, data collection, picture selection and document review.
Many thanks to Lloyd Wright for input and guidance throughout the process and ITDP-China’s Zhu Xianyuan, Li Shanshan, Zhu Jinglu, Yang Shuangjian, Huang Benjun, Chen Dan, Bi Lei, Chen Yujun for assisting data collection.
The project is funded by Asian Development Bank.
Contents
I. Introduction ...... 1 A. Access for All: First Principles for Inclusive Street Design ...... 2 i. First Principles for Inclusive Street Design ...... 2 ii. Current Conditions in Cities of Asia and the Pacific ...... 6 B. Benefits of Inclusive Street Design ...... 18 i. Economic Benefits: Economic Growth & Travel Time Savings ...... 18 ii. Environmental Benefits: GHG Reductions & Air Quality Improvements ...... 18 iii. Social Benefits: Livability & Social Equity Improvements ...... 19 iv. Public Health Benefits: Traffic Safety & Active Lifestyle Improvements ...... 20 C. Case Studies: Inclusive Streets in Seoul, Korea and Guangzhou, China ...... 22 i. Project: Cheonggyecheon ...... 22 ii. Project: Guangzhou Green Ways ...... 23 iii. Inclusive Street Design in Context: The TOD Standard ...... 25
II. Inclusive Street Design ...... 27 A. Street Types: Function & Context ...... 27 i. Street Function ...... 27 ii. Local context ...... 36 B. Pedestrian Facilities ...... 42 i. Walkway ...... 43 ii. Crossings ...... 45 iii. Pedestrian Bridges and Tunnels ...... 50 iv. Shared street ...... 51 v. Pedestrian Mall ...... 52 C. Universal Access ...... 53 i. Universal Access along and across the street ...... 54 ii. Universal access to transit stops and stations ...... 55 iii. Universal access to buildings ...... 56 iv. Detectable surfaces...... 57 D. Non-motorized Vehicles ...... 58 i. Cycleways Network development ...... 59 ii. Cycleway ...... 60 iii. Intersections ...... 67 iv. Greenway ...... 70 v. Green Bridge ...... 71 vi. Cycle Parking ...... 72 vii. Cycle Station ...... 73 viii. Cycle Share ...... 74 ix. Modern Pedicabs ...... 75 x. Delivery Carts ...... 76 E. Transit Integration ...... 77 i. Transit Station Access ...... 78 ii. Walkways and Crosswalks at Bus Stops ...... 79 iii. Cycleways at Transit stops ...... 80 iv. Cycle Parking at Transit Stops & Stations ...... 81 v. Bike Sharing at Transit Stops & Stations ...... 82 vi. Transit Mall ...... 83 F. Traffic Calming ...... 84 i. Neighbourhoods with speed restrictions ...... 85 ii. Neighborhoods with Through Traffic Restrictions ...... 86 iii. Reduction of turning radius ...... 87 iv. Curb Extension (Bulb outs) ...... 88 v. Chicanes ...... 89 vi. Speed Hump or Table ...... 90 vii. Raised crossing ...... 91 viii. Raised intersection ...... 92 ix. Mini-roundabout ...... 93 x. Textured and/or Colorized Pavements ...... 94 G. Green Infrastructure ...... 95 i. Landscaping ...... 96 ii. Bioswales...... 97 iii. Recycled Water ...... 98 iv. Solar Power ...... 99 H. Visibility & Information ...... 100 i. Lighting ...... 101 ii. Markings...... 102 iii. Signage ...... 103 iv. Wayfinding ...... 104 I. Space for Place ...... 105 i. Street Furniture ...... 106 ii. Shading ...... 107 iii. Street Art ...... 108 iv. Space for Vendors ...... 109 v. Playgrounds ...... 110 vi. Play Space ...... 111 vii. Pocket Parks ...... 112 viii. Parklets ...... 113 ix. Street Fairs & Events ...... 114
III. Operationalizing Inclusive Street Design ...... 115 A. Inclusive Streets Cost Considerations ...... 115 B. Stages of Implementation ...... 116 C. Mainstreaming Inclusive Street Design ...... 117 D. Stakeholder Engagement in the Planning Process...... 118 E. Monitoring Project Progress ...... 119 i. Identifying goals and metrics ...... 120 ii. Methods for data collection...... 121 iii. Case Study: Setting Inclusive Streets Goals and Metrics in New York City ...... 123
IV. Conclusion ...... 126
Resources ...... 127 A. References ...... 127 B. Key publications ...... 130 C. Other design guides ...... 131 D. Organizations ...... 133
I. Introduction
The world’s next generation of great cities will need to overcome extreme challenges posed by traffic congestion and associated economic and public health impacts. Nowhere is this truer than in Asia— home to some of the densest cities and worst traffic gridlock in the world. Recently, officials have focused primarily on adding new roadways in hopes of alleviating congestion. But this strategy has failed, and it will continue to fail: whenever a new road or freeway opens, new cars promptly appear to fill the space.
Luckily, there is a strategy that is working. In an effort to reduce congestion and improve mobility, cities are increasingly investing in transit and active transport infrastructure. Active transport—also called non-motorized transport (NMT)—is the term for people-powered modes, including walking and cycling. Cities are finding that building inclusive streets, including pedestrian paths and cycle lanes, installing bike parking and cycle share systems, and investing in public space design can reduce car-dependence, streamline access to public transit, and improve access for all.
To make streets more inclusive, there must be shift in the way streets are designed, away from a focus on increasing travel speed for motorized vehicles, and towards a focus on increasing overall access. In dense cities, transit and non-motorized modes remain the most efficient methods for getting people to jobs, schools, shopping, and cultural destinations. In the great cities of the future, high-quality transit and non-motorized infrastructure will be at the forefront of the city development agenda.
Final Report 1 30 December 2016
A. Access for All: First Principles for Inclusive Street Design The most valuable resource in a dense urban area is public space. But too often this scarce resource is reserved for drivers. While walking accounts for more than half of all trips in Asian cities,1 and vehicle ownership remains out of reach for a majority of people, roads and other car-centric infrastructure takes up 80 percent of public space.2 This equation is unfair and inefficient.
Making streets more inclusive requires reallocating and redesigning public space, and creating a network of streets and paths for cycling and walking. Inclusive streets provide room for transit, walking, cycling, meeting, markets, leisure, and simply being. They include features that make the streetscape more comfortable and attractive—such as trees, furniture, and lighting. They aim to efficiently connect residents to transit and popular destinations by creating direct routes. Finally, inclusive streets include features that improve safety and streamline access for all street users, regardless of gender, age, income, or physical ability. Fig. 1: Transit and cycling lanes move far more people per hour than i. First Principles for Inclusive vehicle lanes. Photo courtesy of Lloyd Wright. Street Design Transforming streets from places for cars to spaces for all can be accomplished through the design and policy interventions detailed in section two of this guidebook. These recommendations are guided by three overarching principles.
Principle #1: Maximize access for all users, not just those in motor vehicle.
It is a common misconception that expanding roadways and adding new freeways will reduce congestion. But this strategy never works: adding roads simply induces demand over time, encouraging more people to drive. As urban planner Lewis Mumford once put it “Adding highway lanes to deal with traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity;”—within a matter of weeks, new roads become gridlocked.
Inclusive streets are a much more effective strategy to help cities to reach mobility goals because transit, cycling, and walking can move a greater volume of people using less space. As shown in Fig. 1, above, one Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) lane can move as many people as 22 mixed traffic lanes. And the city of Austin, Texas recently found that expanding its protected bike lane and improving connectivity to its transit network shifted traffic from cars to bikes and increased the city's traffic capacity by about 25,000 trips per day, all while costing about the same as a single expressway widening.3
1 Asian Development Bank. Walkability and Pedestrian Facilities in Asian Cities. 2011 2 National Association of City Transport Officials. Global Street Design Guide. 2016 3 Wilkes, Nathan. "City of Austin 2014 Bike Plan Update." Slide 47. 2014. Final Report 2 30 December 2016
Inclusive street design requires redesigning road space to improve overall mobility, not just vehicle throughput. Providing room for cyclists, pedestrians, and transit organizes traffic, encourages transit ridership, and can decrease overall travel times. For example, Guangzhou BRT system has cut congestion on one of the city’s busiest roads, Zhangshan Avenue with reconstruction of BRT lanes, cycle ways and sidewalks and traffic order optimization, which had improved trip times for bus riders as well as drivers in the corridor by 29% and 20% respectively for an aggregate annual time.4 In cities that have prioritized inclusive streets, residents are often able to travel faster via transit and non-motorized modes than they would in a private vehicle.
Principle #2: Design streets to encourage non-motorized modes and improve safety and comfort for these users.
As compared to streets for cars, non-motorized transport corridors provide a much more efficient use of road space and have a number of benefits—from reducing pollution, to encouraging economic activity. Studies show that adding sidewalks and improving streetscape infrastructure invites walking.5 For example, in Brighton, England, converting New Road into a pedestrian only street increased pedestrian activity by 62 percent.6
The same is true for biking. In Hangzhou, China, 84 percent of main and secondary roads include infrastructure that separates bikes from cars, and a recent survey found that almost half of parents with middle-school age children who own a car still choose to ride a bike at least once a week.7 A study in New York City found that protected bike lanes attract cycling, and study participants stated they were more inclined to bike because of the new infrastructure.8 Other studies have echoed these findings, noting that the addition of protected lanes not only increases cycling on street segments with protected lanes, but also encourages mode shift.9 Researchers have also noted that cities with higher rates of cycling have lower rates of traffic fatalities.10,11
Adding protected bike lanes and other inclusive street infrastructure will unlock cycling’s untapped potential. According to an analysis by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, about 35 percent of urban trips are under 5km—a distance that can be covered in about 20 minutes by bike. Currently, bicycling rates across Asia are declining as road space becomes overwhelmed by motor vehicles. To increase the use of active transport modes, cities must invest in facilities for cycling.
Principle #3: Make streets welcoming and accessible to women, people with disabilities, and disadvantaged street users.
4 http://www.itdp-china.org/itdpweb/chguangzhoufenxi/ 5 American Planning Association. The Benefits of Street-scale Features for Walking and Cycling. 2015. 6 Gehl, Jan. Cities for People. Island Press. 2010. P. 15. 7 Lusk et al. Gender and used/preferred differences of bicycle routes, parking, intersection signals, and bicycle type: Professional middle class preferences in Hangzhou, China. Journal of Transport & Health, 2014. 8 Transportation Alternatives. East Village Shoppers Study: A Snapshot of Travel and Spending Patterns of Residents and Visitors in the East Village. Transportation Alternatives, 2012. Accessed here: https://www.transalt.org/sites/default/files/news/reports/2012/EV_Shopper_Study.pdf 9 National Institute for Transportation and Communities. Evaluating Protected Bike Lanes in the US. 2014. Accessed here: http://ppms.trec.pdx.edu/media/project_files/NITC-RR-583_Executive_SummaryProtectedLanes.pdf
10 Chen, L., et al. Evaluating the safety effects of bicycle lanes in New York City, American Journal of Public Health, November 17, 2011 11 Pucher, et. al. Infrastructure, programs, and policies to increase bicycling: An international review Preventative Medicine , 2010.
Final Report 3 30 December 2016
Streets that provide for a city’s disadvantaged and vulnerable users improve equity and overall mobility. Women, people with disabilities, and the urban poor have unique needs and must be accounted for in inclusive street design.
• Improving travel conditions for women. Fig. 2: Women have unique transport needs that must be Transport needs are different for women considered. Photo courtesy of ITDP. than for men. Women are more often responsible for childcare and other household chores, and so improving accessibility to markets and other commercial areas may benefit women more than men. 12 Some women have religious considerations, and women are more likely to experience sexual harassment, thus restricting or greatly limiting transport options. Further, women are more likely to travel during non-peak hours and make multiple short trips, which can be expensive if paying for transit.13 Active transport infrastructure provides an alternative mode of transport, allowing women to walk or cycle instead of navigate public transit. For trips where transit is required, female-only transit waiting areas can help to make the street safer. Inclusive street design improvements, such as street lighting, can greatly improve overall safety. Expanded sidewalks, provision of ramps, and other interventions can make it easier to navigate the streets with children, or while carrying groceries or other items.
• Supporting mobility for children, the elderly, disabled residents, and all other mobility or sensory impaired street users. Cities that lack inclusive street design can be more dangerous for the young, elderly, or physically disabled to navigate. Road crashes are a leading cause of death for children between the ages of 5-14.14 Due to vision and hearing loss, as well as physical impairments, the elderly are also highly vulnerable to road injury. Inclusive street improvements including using ramps instead of stairs, removing obstacles from footpaths, and supporting direct street-level access to transit stations improves mobility and access for all urban residents.
• Providing connectivity for the urban poor. Walking and cycling are free or low cost, and are the primary modes of transport for the urban poor. In most cities, disadvantaged populations are more likely to live in areas with inadequate transport infrastructure, leaving them isolated and more vulnerable to safety risks. Active transport investments can provide safer and more efficient routes for low-income residents at a fraction of the cost of building roads. Improving connections between public transit and disadvantaged neighborhoods can improve access to economic opportunity, and
12 World Bank. Toward Gender Equality in Asia and the Pacific. 2012 13 World Bank. Toward Gender Equality in Asia and the Pacific. 2012 14 World Health Organization. World report on child injury prevention. 2008 Final Report 4 30 December 2016 help to save money that may have otherwise gone to rickshaws or paying for other last-kilometer trips.
Final Report 5 30 December 2016 ii. Current Conditions in Cities of Asia and the Pacific Current street conditions in Asia do not encourage active transport nor provide access for all. Streets have largely been built to provide for cars, with not enough priority given to transit and non-motorized modes. Common issues include the following:
Lack of crossings degrade walking conditions and increase travel distance.
Fig. 3 People crossing the street in Dhaka, Bangladesh where and when they can. The street has clearly been designed for motorized vehicles without regard for others. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Final Report 6 30 December 2016
Obstacles on footpaths impair the flow of foot traffic and make it impossible for the mobility impaired to navigate sidewalks.
Fig. 4 Signs erected on a pathway in Guangzhou, PRC create obstacles for pedestrians and make it impassable for wheelchair users. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Final Report 7 30 December 2016
Narrow or lack of walkways cause overcrowding and can force people into the street.
Fig. 5 Sidewalk blocked by construction forces people to walk in Yichang, PRC. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Final Report 8 30 December 2016
Lack of adequate drainage can lead to flooding of footpaths, crosswalks, wheelchair ramps, and cycle ways.
Fig. 6 Accumulated water in a crosswalk in Guangzhou, PRC blocks sidewalk access. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Final Report 9 30 December 2016
Lack of shading, especially in hot climates, makes walking uncomfortable and undesirable.
Fig. 7 Pedestrians carry umbrellas to protect from lack of shade in Manila, Philippines where temperatures average 28 degrees Celsius. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Final Report 10 30 December 2016
Poor quality pavement can erode quickly, creating new obstacles for pedestrians.
Fig. 8 Poor quality, unmaintained sidewalks create hazards for pedestrians in Vientiane, Lao PDR. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Final Report 11 30 December 2016
Uneven pavement creates hazards and challenges the elderly, disabled, and those with strollers or carts to navigate.
Fig. 9 Damaged pavement in Manila, Philippines creates an obstacle for pedestrians. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Final Report 12 30 December 2016
Steepness and stairways create challenges for the mobility impaired. The elderly and disabled may be unable to ascend and therefore unable to access transit stations or pedestrian overpasses.
Fig. 10 A pedestrian with a stroller struggles to ascend a staircase in Hong Kong, PRC. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Final Report 13 30 December 2016
Poor aesthetics create an unpleasant environment, and discourage walking.
Fig. 11 Lined by concrete walls, a pathway in Manila, Philippines is unsightly and potentially unsecure. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Final Report 14 30 December 2016
Cables and wiring can create hazards and are an eye sore.
Fig. 12 Overhead wires in Vientiane, Lao PDR degrade the appearance of the street and buildings. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Final Report 15 30 December 2016
Lack of or dangerous facilitates for pedestrians suggest and obvious disregard for them.
Fig. 13 An extremely long crosswalk in Harbin, PRC exposes people walking to the dangers of motorized vehicles. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Final Report 16 30 December 2016
Lack of enforcement is a major problem in cities around Asia. Without enforcement, cars encroach on walkways and cycle paths, sometimes rendering them impassable.
Fig. 14 Cars parked on a sidewalk in Vientiane, Lao PDR force people to walk amidst the trees. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Final Report 17 30 December 2016
B. Benefits of Inclusive Street Design Inclusive streets expand mobility options and increase economic activity, reduce emissions, enhance public life, and improve health and safety. Demonstrated benefits include the following. i. Economic Benefits: Economic Growth & Travel Time Savings Across Asia, traffic congestion reduces GDP by 2-5 percent.15 Economic costs from sitting in traffic come in the form of wasted fuel, wasted time, and increased cost of moving goods. Without inclusive street design and sustainable mobility planning, congestion will only get worse, and Asia’s growing cities will not reach their full potential. They will be terminally gridlocked and toxically polluted. Commuting will become a daily nightmare, and cities will struggle to attract the businesses and talent that are crucial to sustaining growth.
Providing reliable and convenient transport options is key to supporting continued economic growth in Asia’s growing cities. Studies show that inclusive street investments reduce travel time for all modes. For example, in Zhongshan Avenue of Guangzhou, PRC, Guangzhou BRT system has both improved trip times for bus riders and drivers in the corridor for saving of 52 million hours, a value of $24 million.16 As detailed below, safety improvements gained from inclusive streets improvements also have an economic impact.
Additional benefits to residents include reliability of travel time, and significant cost savings for residents. Chronic congestion forces commuters to budget additional time for travel to account for the uncertainty of travel time. This is time that could otherwise be more productively spent at work, with family and friends, or on other leisure activities. The average cost of owning and operating a vehicle is $1250. Residents who rely on public transport (bus) and active transport (cycling) modes spend $160 and $16 respectively, and without contributing to the negative externalities associated with car ownership.17
Finally, active transportation projects create more jobs than road projects, and save the government money. According to a case study in Maryland, USA active infrastructure projects created 11 to 14 jobs per $1 million of spending, while road projects created approximately half that number.18 And in San Francisco, California, a study found that building one mile (1.6km) of roadway is more than one thousand times more expensive than installing one mile of protected bike lane.19 ii. Environmental Benefits: GHG Reductions & Air Quality Improvements According to the Asian Development Bank, the transport sector is currently responsible for a quarter of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Under business as usual development trends, transport is
15 Asian Development Bank. Transport in Asia and the Pacific: 12 Things to Know. 2012. Accessed here: https://www.adb.org/features/12- things-know-2012-transport 16 ITDP-China. Guangzhou BRT Impact Report. 2014. Accessed: http://www.itdp-china.org/itdpweb/chguangzhoufenxi/ 17 Weinert, J., Ma, C., & Cherry, C. The transition to electric bikes in China: history and key reasons for rapid growth. Transportation, 2007, 34(3), 301-318. 18 Garrett-Peltier, Heidi. 2010. “Estimating the Employment Impacts of Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Road Infrastructure: Case Study: Baltimore,” Political Economy Research Institute, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Accessed August 14, 2014: http://bikemd.org/files/public/documents/job%20Baltimore%20Case%20Study%20- %20Job%20Creation%20per%20Construction%20Projects.pdf 19 San Francisco Bicycle Coalition - No, protected bike lanes are probably not too expensive for your city to build
Final Report 18 30 December 2016 expected to become the single largest GHG emitter, accounting for almost half of global emissions by 2035, and 80% of emissions by 2050.
Transportation is also a primary source of particulate pollution, which contributes to heart and lung disease, increased rates of cancer and birth defects, and boosts premature death rates. Recent statistics from the World Health Organization estimate that outdoor air pollution causes three million premature deaths a year. Hazardous pollution has serious quality of life impacts, requiring people to stay indoors and wear protective masks, and can cause other disruptions, such as cancellation of flights.20 In addition to reducing quality of life, air pollution has a tremendous economic impact, costing China 13.5 percent of GDP – roughly $305 billion—in 2005.21
Investments in inclusive streets and sustainable mobility solutions can dramatically reduce GHG and particulate emissions. Cycling and walking have zero emissions. Replacing motorcycles with electric bicycles can further chip away at emissions. Public transit dramatically reduces per capita emissions—for example, emissions from a private vehicle user is 3.4 times of emissions from an urban bus rider when their speeds are the same, as emissions from a typical bus is 13.6 times of emissions from a private car at the same speed22 and considering the difference in average ridership (70 riders per bus and 1.5 riders per car). The figure would be much larger if the impact of bus and private car on traffic congestion is taken into account. For example, to convey 7000 passengers, it needs only 100 buses for public transit, while 4667 private vehicles are needed, which dramatically increases traffic congestion compared to public transit. These figures will be even more significant as public transit operators are increasingly turning to low-emitting or electric vehicles. iii. Social Benefits: Livability & Social Equity Improvements Quality of life is commonly assessed using a livability index. Several organizations have created their own methods for assessing livability: A recent survey from Metropolis Magazine considered several indicators—including walkability, bikability, public space, and urban revitalization—when ranking its most livable cities.23 The Economist Intelligence Unit considers indicators across five sectors, including environmental quality and infrastructure. 24 And an annual survey from Monocle considers indicators across twelve sectors, including safety, quality of architecture, public transport, environmental issues, “A bikeway is a symbol that shows that a access to nature, and quality of urban design. citizen on a $30 bicycle is equally important as a citizen on a $30,000 car.” While livability indexes differ, most consider –Enrique Peñalosa, Mayor of Bogotá, Colombia accessibility of public transport, air quality, and urban design as proxies to quality of life. Top ranked cities across multiple indexes include Tokyo, Japan; Copenhagen, Denmark; and Toronto, Canada—all of which have invested heavily in active transport,
20 Pinghui, Zhuang. Hundreds of flights cancelled in Beijing as thick smog lays siege to capital. South China Morning Post. December 20, 2016. 21 Domínguez, Gabriel. How Much is Pollution Costing China’s Economy? DW.com; Accessed: http://www.dw.com/en/how-much-is-pollution- costing-chinas-economy/a-18323476 22 Cen, X., Lo, H. K., & Li, L. A framework for estimating traffic emissions: The development of Passenger Car Emission Unit. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 44, 78-92, 2006. 23 Metropolis Magazine. The World's Most Livable Cities. July/August 2015. Accessed: http://www.metropolismag.com/July-August-2015/The- Worlds-Most-Livable-Cities/index.php?cparticle=3&siarticle=2#artanc 24 Economist. The world’s most livable cities. 2016 Final Report 19 30 December 2016 public transit, and public space, and thus received high marks on the livability scorecards. Cities that offer these amenities are cleaner and greener, and the range of public transport options makes it easier for residents to travel between destinations than cities that have not made inclusive street investments.
Designing streets that are safe, comfortable, and interesting for pedestrians and cyclists, and that provide access to efficient and high-quality public transit is a priority for creating livable cities. Inclusive streets can be an effective strategy for cutting traffic congestion and reducing air and noise pollution. Inclusive streets strategies can help to promote social cohesion by providing spaces for people from different backgrounds to mingle and promote urban regeneration by inviting activity to under-visited parts of a city. Finally, active transport is good for mental health: studies show an association with reduced anxiety, better sleep quality, and better cognitive performance.25
Investing in inclusive streets improves social equity because it provides access to no or low-cost travel options and increases access to jobs and amenities for disadvantaged populations.26 Lack of reliable transportation is a significant obstacle to upward mobility. Indeed, recent studies in the US have confirmed that the longer a commute is for a low-income worker, the lower their chances of escaping poverty.27,28 Only 41 percent of trips by Denmark's poorest residents are made in a car, compared to 72 percent of trips by the poorest Americans, 29 a difference Fig. 15 Streets built for cars create dangerous conditions for pedestrians. Image courtesy by Karl largely attributable to the lack of public and active transit Jilg, Swedish Road Administration options in US cities.30 Making transit and active transport more convenient and dignified improves reliability of transport and can make car ownership optional. iv. Public Health Benefits: Traffic Safety & Active Lifestyle Improvements Cities built for cars pose a number of health and safety risks, from increased risk of injuries and fatalities to health impacts resulting from inactive lifestyles. Pedestrians and cyclists are highly vulnerable to accidents in cities without inclusive streets. For example, in Delhi, India, more than half of all fatalities are pedestrians or cyclists hit by motorists. 31 Streets built for unencumbered motor vehicle speed are dramatically more risky: the fatality risk for pedestrians with vehicles traveling at 50
25 American Planning Association. The Benefits of Street-scale Features for Walking and Cycling. 2015. 26 US Federal Highway Administration. Evaluating the Economic Benefits of Non-motorized Transportation. March 2015. Accessed: http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/NTPP_Economic_Benefits_White_Paper.pdf 27 Chetty, Raj et. al. Where is the land of Opportunity? The Geography of Intergenerational Mobility in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2014) 129 (4): 1553-1623. 28 Ewing, et. al., Does urban sprawl hold down upward mobility? Landscape and Urban Planning. Volume 148, April 2016, Pages 80–88 29 Andersen, Michael. How protected bike lanes helped Denmark win its war on inequality. People for Bikes. Accessed: http://www.peopleforbikes.org/blog/entry/does-better-biking-help-poor-people-denmark-shows-the-slow-huge-payoff 30 Tomer, Adie. Where the jobs are: Employer access to labor by transit. Brookings Institute, July 2012. 31 UTTIPEC. Pedestrian Design Guidelines. 2009.
Final Report 20 30 December 2016 km/hr is more than five times higher than the risk at 30 km/hr.32
Inclusive street design improves road safety. Dedicated bike lanes and pedestrian walkways ensure there is appropriate space for each transport mode, helping to organize traffic and reduce cyclist and pedestrian injuries. Studies show that adding dedicated Bus Rapid Transit infrastructure on urban streets reduces traffic crashes, in addition to providing a safer mode of travel as compared to motor vehicles.33 New York City saw a 58 percent decrease in injuries to all street users on a segment where a protected bike lane was installed. And in Seoul, South Korea, inclusive street design interventions near school zones reduced crashes by 39 percent.34 Inclusive street investments spark a virtuous cycle: design improvements attract additional cyclists and pedestrians, which in turn raise driver awareness and improve safety of all modes.
Inclusive streets investment encourages healthier lifestyles. Cities in Asia are seeing obesity increase alongside car ownership. According to the World Health Organization, physical inactivity has become a leading risk factor for pre-mature death, but just twenty minutes of walking per day dramatically reduces this risk factor.35 People who commute via active modes and those who take public transit are more likely to meet physical activity requirements crucial to maintaining a healthy weight,36 thus making inclusive street investment an important public health strategy.
32 Welle B, et al. Cities Safer by Design: Guidance and Examples to Promote Traffic Safety through Urban and Street Design. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, 2015. 33 Duduta, N., C. Adriazola-Steil, D. Hidalgo, L.A. Lindau, and R. Jaffe. “Understanding the Road Safety Impact of High Performance BRT and Busway Design Features.” Transportation Research Record 2317: 8–16(2012). 34 Sul, Jaehoon. Korea’s 95% Reduction in Child Traffic Fatalities: Policies and Achievements. The Korean Transport Institute (KOTI). 35 World Health Organization Fact Sheet n° 385 updated January 2015. 36 Lachapelle U, Frank LD. Transit and health: mode of transport, employer-sponsored public transit pass programs, and physical activity. Journal of Public Health Policy. 2009;30 Suppl 1: S73-94.
Final Report 21 30 December 2016
C. Case Studies: Inclusive Streets in Seoul, Korea and Guangzhou, China There is a growing, international inclusive streets movement. As illustrated in the below examples, results have been impressive. i. Project: Cheonggyecheon Location: Seoul, South Korea
By the mid-20th century, the Cheonggyecheon—a stream that flowed through the heart of Seoul, South Korea—had become a dumping ground. Informal housing lined the banks, and garbage and human waste created a public health concern. Looking for a quick fix, officials covered Cheonggyecheon with concrete, turning the once vibrant stream into a roadway. In 1971, a 5.8 km 6-lane elevated highway was built to accommodate motorized traffic and by the nineties, more than 168,000 cars traveled the roadway daily.
By 1997 the Cheonggyecheon highway was dilapidated and deemed unsafe for heavy-duty vehicles. Vehicle traffic was exposing surrounding communities to noise and hazardous air pollution: a survey found that residents and workers near Cheonggyecheon were more than twice as likely to suffer respiratory disease as Cheonggyecheon by the numbers compared to people in other districts. Development around the • 27 months duration of project until central business district soon ceased, and companies began completion moving to other neighborhoods. Officials were faced with a • 64,000 daily visitors decision: make dramatic upgrades and improvements to the • 23.4 million annual visitors highway, or tear it down. • 35% reduction in small particles air pollution Aspiring mayor Lee Myung-bak saw potential, and made removal • 170,000 fewer cars • of the Cheonggyecheon expressway a cornerstone of his 5°C in temperature reduction • 13% increase in public transit campaign for mayor. Myung-bak’s vision for an eco-friendly Seoul accessibility built for people not cars were compelling enough, and he was elected in 2001.
Planning for the overpass removal began shortly thereafter. From the onset, opposition was fierce. Some residents and transport experts worried the project would worsen traffic congestion. Business owners were concerned that noise and dust from construction activities could impact business, reduce vehicle access, and halt foot traffic. Government officials were concerned about how to recycle waste generated from the demolition, and whether or not the project would be worth it, as water supply could be erratic and the stream may be empty.
A plan was devised to open a bus rapid transit system to alleviate mobility concerns, and in 2003, the project moved ahead. Construction was completed in 2005 and by many measures is a resounding success. Cheonggyecheon has become a popular entertainment and recreation spot for Seoul residents and tourists, welcoming more than 23 million visitors annually.37 Other benefits include the following.
37 Institute for Transportation and Development Policy and EMBARQ. The Life and Death of Urban Highways, 2012.
Final Report 22 30 December 2016
• Accessibility benefits from reducing traffic congestion, adding transit, and improving pedestrian access. The project dramatically improved pedestrian access to local businesses, making the area safer and improving crossing. Bus service was Fig. 16 Cheonggyecheon in Seoul, Korea after improved significantly, and integrated service daylighting and NMT improvements. Photo courtesy by with rail for more seamless travel. In addition, ITDP. they invested in intelligent transportation systems (ITS) to manage routes and traffic operations and introduced a smart card system to enable easy and convenient transfers across different transport modes. Accessibility of public transit (measured by an index called “MAG”) increased by more than 13 percent between 2002 and 2006.38
• Economic benefits from capital cost savings and revitalization of the Cheonggyecheon neighborhood. The revitalization project required less capital investment than retrofitting the overpass, and reduced ongoing maintenance fees. Economic activity increased significantly, and land values around Cheonggyecheon increased by 25 percent after the project while other nearby areas increased only 10 percent.39
• Environmental benefits from mode shift toward NMT and transit, and environmental revitalization. The number of vehicles entering or leaving the Cheonggyecheon area has decreased by more than forty percent, as compared to 2002 baselines, dramatically reducing particulate and GHG emissions. The new waterfront with its teeming biodiversity enhanced this further. The resulting serene stretch additionally contributed to reducing the urban heat island effect in Seoul. Temperatures cooled along the corridor and even wind speeds increased. More importantly, upgrading public transportation and prioritizing its use over car dependence helped pollution subside. As traffic decreased, air quality improved.
• Livability benefits from high-quality public spaces and improved transport and leisure options. A space that was previously reserved for cars was transformed to a lively space that offered cultural opportunities, as well as a pleasant natural environment. Local residents and tourists now have a place to stroll, exercise, relax, or interact with others.
ii. Project: Guangzhou Green Ways Location: Guangzhou, Peoples Republic of China
38 Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2006 39 Seoul Metropolitan Government, 2006
Final Report 23 30 December 2016
Guangzhou greenway is 3000km long (2016), covers 11 districts, links more than 300 scenic spots, and has 160 rest stops. 40 It is the longest greenway in China and links most number of scenic spots, and has the biggest coverage in urban area, which has served more than 8 million residents and tourists.41 Using greenway for commuting, exercising and leisure is becoming a new fashion for the public to enjoy a low carbon life. Guangzhou greenway received “Sustainable transportation award”, “National fitness trail demonstration project”, “China habitat environment award” and become a new business card for Guangzhou.
Fig. 17 Guangzhou Greenway in Guangzhou, PRC integrated into transit systems, NMT systems and public spaces. Photo courtesy of Guangzhou Greenway Office.
In order to alleviate the problems such as congestions, pollutions caused by rapid urban development and improve the quality of life, in 2003 Guangdong Provincial Government, PRC issued the Regional Green Space Planning Guideline and the Urban Green Belt Planning Guide; In 2008, Guangzhou, the capital of Guangdong Province built 50 km bicycle lanes in Zengcheng District; In April 2010, the Guangdong Provincial Government approved the Pearl River Delta Greenway Network Planning Outline; At the end of 2010, Guangzhou finished the construction of 1060 km greenways; In 2014, Guangzhou had built 2763 km greenways, which is the longest greenway network in the Pearl River Delta.42 In June 2016, Guangzhou had completed the upgrade plan for Guangzhou greenway to build more perfect and more beautiful the greenway network system. Numbers below shows benefits of Guangzhou Greenway.43
Main principles of Guangzhou As the greenway make a fashion for travel and improved the Greenway Construction: ecological livable city image, with the benefit below: • city forest cover rate reached up to 55.38% • Integrate into NMT and transit • reduce 2480000 t carbon emissions per year systems, provide an accessible • product 443340 t oxygen per year and convenient environment • 95% respondents felt the air quality improved obviously for residents. • 76% respondents felt greenway improved the image of city • 1.55 billion RMB per year for Guangzhou green ecological leisure tourism value.
40 Guangzhou Greenway Office, 2016 41 Guangzhou Greenway Office, 2016 42 Guangzhou Greenway Office, 2016 43 He Junyong. The Benefit Evaluation of Greenway Construction in Guangzhou City[D], Chinese Academy of Forestry, 2014.
Final Report 24 30 December 2016
• Integrate of urban and rural areas, optimize network layout for sustainable development. • highlight the function, create distinctive greenways to attract pedestrians and cyclists.
iii. Inclusive Street Design in Context: The TOD Standard Transit Oriented Development (TOD) refers to urban development that is well served by—and supports access to—high quality public transport. With a focus on mobility and access over car-centric development, TOD neighborhoods tend to be safer, more economically vibrant, and more inclusive than non-TOD neighborhoods.
In 2014, the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) released The TOD Standard—an assessment and policy guidance tool focused on integrating sustainable transport, land use planning, and street design. The standard includes performance objectives and measurable indicators, and assigns points in the following 8 categories:
1. Walkable. Points awarded for high quality, unobstructed pedestrian footpaths that include furniture, landscaping elements, and active building edges. 2. Cycleable: Points awarded for street design that supports safety for cyclists through low road speeds, well marked cycle space, and/or separated cycle tracks, as well as shading, smooth surfaces, and secure cycle parking. 3. Connected: Points awarded for presence of short and direct pedestrian and cycle routes that maximize connectivity to transit stations, commercial, residential, and leisure areas. 4. Transit-Accessible: Points awarded for development near high-quality, high-capacity public transport, such as BRT or rail transit. 5. Mixed Use: Points awarded for balanced mix of uses and activities within a local area (e.g., a mix of residences, workplaces, and retail). 6. Densely Developed: Points awarded for vertical development around high-capacity transit. 7. Compact Neighborhoods: Points awarded for landuse that supports short commutes through locating various activities and uses close together. 8. Mode-Shift: Points awarded for policy and design measures that encourage walking and cycling through regulating parking and road use.
The TOD Standard provides a framework to evaluate the planning and design components that make a neighborhood inclusive and accessible. The standard can be used alongside this guidebook to:
• Assess walkability, cycle friendliness, and transit access of completed or planned urban projects;
Final Report 25 30 December 2016
• Evaluate existing transit station areas (or station area plans) to identify opportunities for active transport improvement and investment; • Inform policy and regulations to support inclusive landuse, transport, and street design.
Final Report 26 30 December 2016
II. Inclusive Street Design
A. Street Types: Function & Context i. Street Function Streets can be categorized by their function and context. Function refers to traffic (people, cyclists, motorists, transit) or lack thereof. Context refers to the surrounding environment (building type, land use, activity). Streets serve many purposes and the permutations of function and context are highly location specific. The following provides a few typical examples. Also refer to specific street types such as Transit Mall and Shared Street described below.
Final Report 27 30 December 2016
Street Type: Large Urban Thoroughfare
7 10 6
8
5 4 9
5 1 8 5 3 2
6
Fig. 18 Guangzhou, PRC. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
1. Transitways 2. Roadways 3. Cycleways 4. Walkways 5. Transit Stations 6. Pedestrian Crossings 7. Mix-use buildings 8. Signals and Lighting 9. Plazas 10. Landscaping
Final Report 28 30 December 2016
Street Type: Downtown with Transit
7 6
1
9 5 8 2 3 6 4
Fig. 19 Yichang, PRC. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
1. Transitways 2. Roadways 3. Cycleways 4. Walkways 5. Transit Stations 6. Pedestrian Crossings 7. Mix-use Buildings 8. Signals and Lighting 9. Landscaping
Final Report 29 30 December 2016
Street Type: Prominent Boulevard
2 4
5 3
1
Fig. 20 Ahmedabad, India. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
1. Mix roadways 2. Landscaping and shading 3. Parking 4. Lighting 5. Walkways
Final Report 30 30 December 2016
Street Type: Low-scale Boulevard
4
2 5
3 1
Fig. 21 Ulan Bator, Mongolia. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
1. Mid Walkways 2. Lighting 3. Landscaping 4. Mix-use buildings 5. Roadway
Final Report 31 30 December 2016
Street Type: Town Shopping Street
4 3
6 5 1 2
Fig. 22 Yangjiang, PRC. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
1. Mix roadways 2. Walkways 3. Shading 4. Buildings 5. Landscaping and lighting 6. Parking
Final Report 32 30 December 2016
Street Type: Low-scale Mixed Use
1
1
Fig. 23 Manila, Philippines. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
1. Share streets 2. Residential buildings
Final Report 33 30 December 2016
Street Type: Neighborhood Market Street
3
2
1
Fig. 24 Bandung, Indonesia. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
1. Share streets 2. Shops 3. Residential buildings
Final Report 34 30 December 2016
Street Type: Narrow Lane
2
1
Fig. 25 Shanghai, PRC. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
1. Share streets 2. Residential buildings
Final Report 35 30 December 2016 ii. Local context Density
Fig. 26 Hong Kong, PRC. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Eight of the ten most populous cities in the world are in Asia. Development in these cities is characterized by tall buildings and high population densities, making mass-transit and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure essential.
Final Report 36 30 December 2016
Weather
Fig. 27 Bangkok, Thailand. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Many cities in Asia and the Pacific are tropical–hot and humid most of the year with a high frequency of heavy rain. Trees, awnings, and other amenities can dramatically improve the walking environment in these cities.
Final Report 37 30 December 2016
Arcades
Fig. 28 Mumbai, India. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Arcades are common design feature in hot climates. They provide cover and protect pedestrians from sun and rain exposure. Arcades are located on the ground floor of a building and lined with shops, as in the above photo. Commercial and/or residential units occupy the floors above.
Final Report 38 30 December 2016
Motorized Vehicles
Fig. 29 Jakarta, Indonesia. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
In recent decades, many Asian cities have become overrun with vehicles, especially motor bikes. It is very difficult to manage motor bikes, as they have the versatility of a bicycle, so some cities have banned them outright. In this photo the motorbikes have completely taken over the transit lane.
Final Report 39 30 December 2016
Informal Transit
Fig. 30 Manila, Philippines. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Informal micro-transit—including mini-buses, jeepneys, songtheaws, and UVs—fill gaps in public transit, have more flexible routes, and are often more affordable than other modes. In some places, these vehicles have become an iconic feature of urban life.
Final Report 40 30 December 2016
Informal Transit
Fig. 31 Manila, Philippines. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Mini taxies, like tuk tuks, are an integral part of the transport system, improving access and helping to connect residents to public transit. Their small size makes them easy to operate on minor roads, and low cost makes them appealing to riders.
Final Report 41 30 December 2016
B. Pedestrian Facilities
Fig. 32 A continuous sidewalk with well pavements, shadings, bollards, blind tracks, seats, drainages and landscaping is integrated into a small bus station in Singapore. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Well-designed walkways promote safe and comfortable pedestrian mobility. They are the most used of all urban public space, and should be accessible to all users, regardless of age, gender, or ability. Design elements and amenities, such as furniture and landscaping, improve the streetscape and invite people walking, socialize, and relax.
Final Report 42 30 December 2016 i. Walkway Walkway Surface Materials
Fig. 33 This walkway surface in Shanghai, PRC includes high-quality paving stones as well as detectable surfaces to help guide the visually impaired. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Material used for the walking surface of the walkway. Why surface material matters: • Smooth walkway surfaces free of obstacles are the cornerstone of inclusive street design. • Walkways are prime locations to introduce variety in the streetscape, and to include features to help manage stormwater. Common issues: • The most common material is concrete or paving stones. Options include permeable asphalt, brick pavers, rough tile, scored concrete and colored concrete. • Low-quality materials can erode and become easily damaged, creating obstacles for pedestrians. Recommendations: • Ensure that the surface material is smooth and slip-resistant. • Provide a consistent path to maximize legibility for the visually impaired. • Ensure proper cross-slope and drainage to minimize water retention.
Final Report 43 30 December 2016
Walkway Separation
Fig. 34 This street in Singapore distinguishes the walkway with distinct stones and color, and uses bollards to protect pedestrians from vehicles. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Separation between the walkway and roadway. Why walkway separation matters: • Walkway separation features help to organize modes and keep pedestrians safe from motor vehicles. Common issues: • Lack of designated pedestrian walkway. • Lack of design features allows vehicles to encroach on pedestrian spaces. Recommendations: • Use bollards, guard rails, bioswales, and landscaping in addition to, or instead of curbs. These treatments are also successful at preventing vehicles from running over hidden basements, preventing damage to footway surfaces, street furniture and buildings whilst reducing the risk of pedestrian injury.
Final Report 44 30 December 2016 ii. Crossings Driveway Crossings
Fig. 35 This driveway in Singapore includes level and well-marked pedestrian crossing, bollards to prevent vehicle access to the sidewalk, and ramps up between the roadway and walkway. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: The location at which a driveway or other vehicle access point crosses the walkway. Why driveway crossings matter: • Driveways are a source of conflict between vehicles and pedestrians, especially where turning speed is high and yielding is low. • Design driveways to indicate to all users that pedestrians have priority and drivers are meant to yield. Common issues: • Although they are necessary for access to property, driveways interrupt the continuity of the walkway. • Motorists, especially motorcyclists, can easily drive onto the walkway from driveways. Recommendations: • Maintain a level walkway and continue walkway surface (and color) through the driveway area. Ramp the driveway up between the roadway and walkway. • Block vehicle access to the walkway from the driveway with bollards or barriers. • Limit the width of a driveway to two lanes. If more lanes are required, provide a median. • Combine and/or close driveways.
Final Report 45 30 December 2016
Street Crossings
Fig. 36 This street crossing in Tokyo, Japan connects people to a popular shopping center. Right of way is established through the use of zebra stripes and signaling. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: A formal crossing (crosswalk) is one that is demarcated with markings (zebra stripes) and/or traffic control device (traffic signal, stop sign). Motorists must yield to pedestrians at a formal crossing. Why street crossings matter: • People will cross the street where it is most convenient and safe. A well-designed street anticipates this and provides crossings accordingly. • Formal crossings provide motorists with a clear indicator of where pedestrians will cross. Common issues: • Lack of crossings encourage pedestrians to cross at unsafe locations. • Crossing locations may interrupt the traffic network; however, it is better to accommodate pedestrians than not. Recommendations: • The most common crosswalk is the “zebra” (pictured). In areas with high vehicle volume, rapid traffic speeds, or multiple lanes, crossings should be signalized and/or refuge islands should be added. • Provide zebra striping across each leg of every street at an intersection. • Provide larger crosswalks where there are larger pedestrian volumes, especially at traffic signals.
Final Report 46 30 December 2016
• Locate midblock crossings along desire lines, especially at popular destinations, such as commercial areas and transit stations, in which the recommended distance between two crossings is 150m. Refuge Islands
Fig. 37 This intersection in Hong Kong includes islands midway thought the crossing, as well as tiles to indicate to the visually impaired where to stop. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: A refuge island (safety island, pedestrian refuge, pedestrian island) is a small raised, paved or marked area located in the center of a street. Why refuge islands matter: • Islands provide a safe place for pedestrians to wait for a gap in traffic before continuing to cross the street. Common issues: • The elderly and the mobility impaired may have a hard time making it safely across a street in the time allowed by signals. Recommendations: • Ensure the refuge island is large enough to accommodate pedestrian volume. The minimum width is 1.8m – the length of a person pushing a pram (baby stroller). • Include bell bollards or other markers at either end of the refuge island. • Refuge islands at formal crossings are to be accessible.
Final Report 47 30 December 2016
Continuous Pedestrian Refuge (Median)
Fig. 38 This continuous median on Oxford Street in London provides a place for people to wait midway as they cross the street. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Definition: A median which serves as a continuous pedestrian refuge island and facilitates informal crossings. Why medians matter: • Where crossing demand outstrips the ability of a few scattered refuge islands, continuous medians allow pedestrians to cross at will. Common issues: • On busy commercial streets, pedestrians may cross frequently to access shops and restaurants, increasing the likelihood of traffic crashes. Recommendations: • Add continuous pedestrian refuges on shopping streets where vehicle volumes are low or there are long gaps in traffic created by traffic signals. • Raise the median (10-15 cm) and pave it differently than the roadway.
Final Report 48 30 December 2016
Pedestrian Signals
Fig. 39 This pedestrian signal in Harbin, China turns green when it is safe to walk, and includes a countdown to let pedestrians know how much time they have to cross. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Traffic signal dedicated to pedestrian traffic and located at an intersection or midblock. Why signals matter: • Signals let pedestrians know when they have the right of way, and how much time they have to make it safely across a roadway. Common issues: • Without signals, pedestrians will attempt to cross when it appears safe. This can be dangerous, especially for the young and elderly. • In areas with high pedestrian volume, lack of signals can exacerbate traffic issues as pedestrians consistently try to cross. Recommendations: • Provide pedestrian signals at larger, complex signalized intersections. Pedestrian signals are not necessary at smaller signalized intersections. • Include a countdown signal so that people know how much time is left to cross. • Include an all-pedestrian phase there is a heavy demand to cross diagonally, or at T- intersections.
Final Report 49 30 December 2016 iii. Pedestrian Bridges and Tunnels
Fig. 40 This pedestrian tunnel in Singapore provides universal access under the road. Note the lighting, good visibility, and gentle slope. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: A bridge or tunnel specifically provided for pedestrians (and cyclists) to cross the road. Why bridges and tunnels matter: • Pedestrian bridges and tunnels provide access over/under roads and can connect to transit stations, shopping centers, etc. • Pedestrian bridges and tunnels should be used sparingly, generally only when there is a reason to go up or down. Common issues: • Pedestrian bridges and tunnels can be inconvenient and hard to access. Those with disabilities, as well as those pushing prams or strollers, may have an especially hard time navigating steps, and therefore be unable to access these amenities. Recommendations: • Install pedestrian bridges and tunnels only where there is a natural change in elevation; where required to access underground or elevated transit; or when connected directly to buildings and shopping centers. • Improve safety by providing direct line of sight, including lights, and actively managing vending and security. • Create interest and improve convenience by including shops, especially in tunnels. • Provide weather protection on bridges.
Final Report 50 30 December 2016 iv. Shared street
Fig. 41 This shared street in Tokyo, Japan uses different colored and textured paving stones to demarcate the roadway, as well as bollards to protect pedestrians from motor vehicles. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: A street shared by all users regardless of mode, also known as home zone, woonerf. Shared streets are low speed (10 kph) zones and may not have curbs. Why shared streets matter: • Shared streets are a great way to accommodate all modes and improve safety on narrow commercial or residential streets. • A series of shared streets can connect schools, senior centers, parks, playgrounds, etc. Common issues: • Narrow streets may not have enough space to separate all modes. Without design interventions, vehicle speed can create a hazard for pedestrians and cyclists. Recommendation: • Design shared streets to limit vehicle speed with speed humps, chicanes, narrow roadway, etc. • Improve accessibility and flow by eliminating curbs. Use bollards, street furniture, and/or pavement treatments to demarcate the roadway. • Incentivize adjacent residents and merchants to play an active role in the use and management of the street (cooperative sanitation and vehicle access management). • Actively manage and/or limit vehicle access, parking and loading.
Final Report 51 30 December 2016 v. Pedestrian Mall
Fig. 42 This pedestrian mall in Guangzhou, PRC invites economic activity and provides a safe public space. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Street or series of streets where pedestrian traffic is privileged. Auto traffic is either prohibited or greatly restricted. Cycle traffic is generally allowed. Transit may be allowed.
Why pedestrian malls matter: • Pedestrian malls invite economic activity, provide public space, and keep pedestrians safe from vehicles. Common issues: • Vehicle traffic creates an unappealing pedestrian environment, reducing economic activity and creating a safety risk. Recommendation: • Convert high-volume shopping streets, narrow neighborhood shopping streets, popular tourist areas, and areas with numerous metro connections to pedestrian malls. • Design to ensure universal access and goods delivery.
Final Report 52 30 December 2016
C. Universal Access
Fig. 43 Changzhou, PRC. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Universal access refers to facilities designed to facilitate access for all, including the young, elderly, and differently abled. Universal access can maximize the percentage of residents who can travel independently, thereby reducing the need for customized transit services.
Final Report 53 30 December 2016 i. Universal Access along and across the street
Fig. 44 This zebra crossing in Singapore has detectable surfaces that provide a tactile cue to the visually impaired. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Features that can be traversed by people with reduced mobility or vision impairments. Why it matters: • Universal access is essential to creating inclusive streets. • Providing universal access costs no more than not. • Universally accessible facilities also benefit people pushing prams, carrying packages, or rolling luggage. Common issues: • Steep curbs, obstacles, and stairs limit access for those with mobility or visual impairments. Recommendations: • Provide continuous, level walkways that are wide enough to accommodate pedestrian traffic and free of cracks and other obstacles. • Provide short and gradual ramps in addition to stairs to buildings, at hills, on bridges, etc. • Use curb, truncated domes and other tactile features to provide detectible separation between the walkway and roadway. • Provide talking signals (audible pedestrian signal) for the visually impaired.
Final Report 54 30 December 2016 ii. Universal access to transit stops and stations
Fig. 45 This bus stop in Singapore includes a ramp, in addition to stairs, as well as tactile features at the top of the stairs to assist the visually impaired. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Step-free access to transit stations. Why it matters: • Providing universal access to transit stops and stations costs no more than not. Common issues: • Stairs and other obstacles make it challenging or impossible for the mobility impaired to access transit stations, leaving them stranded or isolated, or forcing them to take private vehicles to access jobs, goods, and services. Recommendations: • Provide ramps instead of, or in addition to, stairs. • Coordinate the location and design of transit stops and stations with the design of the street.
Final Report 55 30 December 2016 iii. Universal access to buildings
Fig. 46 This building in Shanghai includes a ramp, in addition to stairs, to assist those with wheelchairs or trolleys in accessing the entrance. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Step-free access to buildings Why universal access to buildings matters: • Providing universal access to buildings costs no more than not. Common issues: • Streets and buildings are not always built at the same level, requiring stairs or ramps to connect the street to the entrance. • Steep stairs present a barrier to those with disabilities, prams, packages, or luggage. Recommendations: • Provide ramps instead of, or in addition to, stairs.
Final Report 56 30 December 2016 iv. Detectable surfaces
Fig. 47 These detectable surfaces in Singapore are used to support wayfinding in a transit station. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Detectable surfaces have tactile nodes that can be felt with a cane or an underfoot. Common options include: • Directional indicator –raised parallel bars laid along the direction of travel • Positional indicator – raised dots in a staggered pattern indicating a change in travel direction • Hazard warning indicator – raised dots in a square grid indicating a stop or step Why detectable surfaces matter: • Detectable surfaces support wayfinding and hazard warning for people with visual impairment. The consistent application of detectable surfaces is crucial for ensuring that pedestrians with visual impairments are supported in navigating the street environment safely and confidently. Common issues: • Currently, use of detectable surfaces is inconsistent. • Similar to sign clutter, excessive application of detectable surfaces does not further benefit people with visual impairment and can negatively impact streetscape aesthetics. Conversely, excessive paving patterns in the walkway can confuse those with visual impairments. Recommendations: • Install detectable surfaces at curbs, along walkways, through plazas and other large areas, in transit stations, leading to stairs and elevators, and other places where people walk.
Final Report 57 30 December 2016
D. Non-motorized Vehicles
Fig. 48 Bangkok, Thailand. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Cycleways refers to facilities for travel by non-motorized vehicle (NMV). A cycleway can be in the road or not. NMVs include bicycles, pedicabs, skateboards, and any other human-powered vehicle.
Final Report 58 30 December 2016 i. Network development
Fig. 49 Guangzhou greenway network in core area of Guangzhou, PRC. Image courtesy by ITDP.
Definition: cycleways network will be linked to important destinations including residential areas, employment, schools, commercial area, transit stations, parks, recreational venues and etc. Why cycleway network matters: • Cycleways need to remain continuous and accessible for cyclists and ensure that cycling is a viable form for transport as well as a recreation that many people of all ages can enjoy. Common issues: • Isolated large block, large-scale traffic facilities or geographic factors, wide main streets increasing greatly the detour distance of cycling. • Focusing on demonstration cycleways and neglecting the network development make cycleway system not so useful for cyclists. Recommendations: • Analyze the demand points of cycleways network and provide connections where ever necessary to complete the network, especially the transit stations, schools and parks. • the division of small blocks contributes to form a dense greenway network. Open a part of community is an important supplementation of urban greenway.
Final Report 59 30 December 2016 ii. Cycleway Protected Cycle Lane
Fig. 50 This cycleway in Changzhou, PRC is separated from the main roadway, is shaded by trees, and is wide enough for thousands of cyclists. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Definition: A protected cycle lane (cycletrack, buffered bike lane) is a portion of the road reserved for use by NMVs. It is typically physically separated from the roadway. Why cycleways matter: • Providing protected cycle lanes throughout a city is the best way to increase bicycle use and improve safety for cyclists. Common issues: • Cycleways have not been prioritized in urban streets. • Cycleways are often blocked by vehicles and police tend not to enforce the regulation. Recommendations: • Design the cycleway as a principal part of the roadway. • Separate the cycleway from motorized vehicles through physical barriers, especially in areas where there is congestion and/or fast moving vehicles. • Maintain cycleways the same way as the road. • Ensure that motorists cannot block cycleways through the use of bollards, curbs, etc.
Final Report 60 30 December 2016
Cycle Lane
Fig. 51 This cycle lane in Shanghai, PRC, runs contra-flow along this 1-way street. Cyclists traveling the other direction go with motorists. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Definition: A cycle lane (bike lane) is a portion of the road reserved for use by NMVs, but not physically separated. They generally connect between protected cycle lanes or greenways. Why cycle lanes matter: • Not all streets can accommodate a protected cycle lane. Cycle lanes make the secondary connections. Common issues: • Unprotected cycle lanes are not ideal for travel by children and the elderly, and they are easily block by motorists. • Cycle network connectivity is too often not prioritized, and fails to provide direct connections to popular destinations. Recommendations: • Locate cycle lanes on streets with lower traffic volumes and speeds; or lower the traffic volumes and speeds via traffic calming.
Final Report 61 30 December 2016
Shared Lane
Fig. 52 Street in Aachen, Germany, shared by cyclists, transit, and motorists. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Definition: A shared lane is a narrow lane (max 3m wide) shared by motorized and non-motorized vehicles. Priority to cyclists is indicated through signage and street treatments. Why shared lanes matter: • Shared lanes are key tertiary links in the cycle network. They are ideal places for children and the elderly to ride. They can be organized to connect schools, parks, and playgrounds. Common issues: • Without proper signage and design, motorists assume priority and can create hazards for cyclists. Recommendations: • Include signs, markings and traffic calming to communicate cyclist priority. • Minimize the operating width of the lane to ensure that drivers do not attempt to pass cyclists. • Provide space for motorists to pass cyclists every 150m or so.
Final Report 62 30 December 2016
Cycleway Width
Fig. 53 This cycleway in Changzhou, PRC is wide enough for two cyclists to pass a tricycle. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Definition: the width of the cycleway Why cycleway width matters: • Adequate cycleway width is crucial to support bicycle flow, allow for passing room, and improve safety. Common issues: • Narrow cycleways can create safety hazards and cause congestion. Recommendations: • Greenway: Wide enough for two cyclists to ride abreast and pass two cyclists (5m). • 2-way on-street Cycleway: wide enough for two cyclists to ride abreast and pass another cyclist (3-4m). • 1-way on-street Cycleway: wide enough for two cyclists to ride abreast or one cyclist to pass another (1.5-2.5m). • Wider to accommodate high cyclist volume. • Wider where they are numerous 3-wheelers and trailers. • Add shoulders (0.3-0.5m) where there is no curb. • Width exclusive of catch basins, drains & other obstacles.
Final Report 63 30 December 2016
Cycleway Surface Material
Fig. 54 This cycleway in Yichang, PRC uses colored permeable asphalt material. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: the material used for the riding surface of the cycleway. Why surface material matters: • Cycleway material must be of good quality to provide a smooth ride and reduce erosion. • Non-motorized vehicles cause much less wear and tear than cars and trucks, thus the cycleway is a prime opportunity to use permeable asphalt and other materials that help to manage stormwater runoff. Common issues: • Poor materials can erode quickly, creating hazards for cyclists. Recommendations: • Use materials that are smooth but not slippery, durable but easy to repair, and quick to install but long lasting. • Ensure proper cross-slope and drainage to minimize water retention.
Final Report 64 30 December 2016
Cycleway Colour
Fig. 55 This coloured roadway in Washington DC, USA clearly indicates the cycleway, including direction of travel and points of hazard. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: The colour of the riding surface of the cycleway. Why cycleway colour matters: • Colour helps to differentiate the cycleway from other parts of the street, especially at conflict points such as intersections and driveways. • Colour makes motorists more aware of the presence of cyclists. • Colour helps navigation and wayfinding - it is easier to follow a green path than a series of signs. Common issues: • Cycleways that are the same color as roadways are more likely to be encroached on by motorists. Recommendation: • Use colour primarily at intersections and other conflict points.
Final Report 65 30 December 2016
Cycleway Separation
Fig. 56 This cycleway in Changzhou, PRC is separated from the main roadway by a planted median. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Definition: Techniques to separate cycleways from other parts of the roadway – bollards, curbs, medians, trees, landscaping, and fences. Why cycleway separation matters: • Separation treatments help to keep non-cyclists out of the cycleway, thus maintaining access for cyclists. Common issues: • Cycleways are frequently blocked by other users: parked vehicles, vendors, people walking, turning vehicles, etc. Recommendations: • Use bollards or other design features to discourage encroachment. • Provide space for people crossing the street to wait before or after crossing the cycleway. • Provide space for vehicles to stop and access the curb without blocking the cycleway. • Provide space (1m) for opening car doors where the cycleway is adjacent to on-street parking.
Final Report 66 30 December 2016 iii. Intersections Intersection Markings
Fig. 57 This bike box allows cyclists to queue in front of stopped motorists. Photo courtesy of Lloyd Wright.
Definition: Cycleway markings (including colour) at intersections. Why cycleway markings at intersections matter: • markings at intersections indicate to cyclists and motorists proper placement and right of way for each. Common issues: • Without clear markings, motorists often do not provide adequate space for cyclists. Recommendations: • Colour the cycleway at intersections. • Provide separate space for cyclists and pedestrians. • Provide a “bike box” or advance stop line (3-5m from crosswalk) for cyclists at all signalized intersections. • Include “intersection-only bike lanes” (15m long) where there is no dedicated cycleway, so that cyclists can pass queued vehicles. • Provide space for cyclists to queue between the crosswalk and cross street.
Final Report 67 30 December 2016
Cycle Separation
Fig. 58 This intersection in Amsterdam, Netherlands has separate paths for pedestrians and cyclists. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Techniques to separate cycleways from other parts of the roadway at an intersection. Also known as a “protected intersection”. Why separation at intersections matter: • At larger intersections it is better for cyclists to be physically separated from motorists and potential conflicts. • Separation at intersections guides all users. Common issues: • Intersections create acute safety hazards for cyclists, and are often overlooked in cycleway design. Recommendations: • Provide a protected space for cyclists to queue while waiting to turn left (or right) during a 2- stage turn. • Provide a median or refuge island for cyclists to wait when crossing midblock. Ensure it is wider than the length of a bike (1.5m).
Final Report 68 30 December 2016
Cycle Signals
Fig. 59 Bicycle signals in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Signals for cyclists at intersections. Why signals matter: • Signals help to ensure cyclists cross intersections when motorists are stopped. • Signals can help to maintain cyclist travel speed as it is often safe for cyclists to cross an intersection when it may not be safe for motorists to proceed. Common issues: • Cyclists are more likely to cross against traffic lights when they are not provided their own signal. Recommendations: • Where a traffic signal is warranted, signals for cyclists should be included as well. • Include a leading bicycle interval (bike signal turns on a few seconds before the green light) where motorists turn across a cycleway. • If the traffic signal is not fixed, ensure that cyclists can activate it via push button or bike sensor.
Final Report 69 30 December 2016 iv. Greenway
Fig. 60 This greenway in Beijing, PRC, runs along the canal and is accessible to cyclists and pedestrians. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Definition: High quality non-motorized corridor that provides convenience and safety to users through human-oriented design. Why greenways matter: • Greenways attract pedestrians and cyclists and are an effective strategy for improving accessibility throughout a city. • Greenways are inclusive in that they are open and available to all. Common issues: • Pedestrians and cyclist access is not a major priority in many Asian cities. Recommendations: • Use greenways to connect places where people want to go. • Connect greenways to places along the way. • Provide places along greenways to stop, rest, dine, see the view, lock your bike, picnic, etc. • Ensure universal access to and along greenways. • Provide good visibility and lighting to promote evening and early morning use and for security.
Final Report 70 30 December 2016 v. Green Bridge
Fig. 61 This iconic bridge in Bogota, Columbia provides a seamless connection for cyclists and has become a popular photo destination. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Green bridges bring greenways across roads, rivers, and railways. Why green bridges matter: • Green bridges form an important part of the cycleway (and walkway) network, linking neighborhoods and allowing riders to bypass motorized traffic. Common issues: • Retrofitting bridges intended for cars often does not result in ideal bicycle conditions or connectivity. Recommendations: • Connect green bridges to cycleways on either side of the bridge. • Provide sufficient shade and lighting on the bridge. • Invest in thoughtful design to ensure the green bridge becomes an iconic landmark.
Final Report 71 30 December 2016 vi. Cycle Parking
Fig. 62 U-shaped bike parking in Sydney, Australia placed on a curb extension. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Designated spaces for leaving a bicycle, including racks and lockers. Why it matters: • Cycle parking contributes to the overall cycle network by providing a place for people to park and lock their bikes at various places along the day’s journey. • Racks and lockers ensure there is appropriate room to leave a bicycle and helps keep the streetscape organized. • “It is hard to ride a stolen bike.” Common issues: • Cyclists will ride as near to their destination as possible. If there is no bike parking, they will lock to fences or signposts which is less organized and increases likelihood of theft. Recommendations: • Locate cycle parking as close as possible to the destination without hindering access or obstructing the walkway. • Ensure that cycle parking is visible from the street to enhance security. • Locate cycle parking in weather-protected areas. • Use racks which have two points of attachment per bike. Attach the rack securely to the ground or building. • Coordinate cycle parking with other street furniture.
Final Report 72 30 December 2016 vii. Cycle Station
Fig. 63 Entrance leading to the underground cycle station at the Amsterdam South train station in the Netherlands. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Definition: Cycle stations include guarded bike parking, repair shops, showers, shops, and other amenities for cyclists. Why it matters: • Cycle stations provide crucial amenities to cyclists and are an effective way to communicate that they matter. • Reliable parking facilities and hubs at transit stations are an increasingly important way to support cycling as a viable travel mode. Common issues: • Bike parking at high demand areas such as transit station can become disorganized and unsightly. Recommendations: • Locate cycle stations near transit stations as well as popular shopping centres, landmark buildings, or other public space. • Work with local authorities and in partnership with landowners to provide high-quality facilities. • Ensure high levels of security, through use of camera surveillance.
Final Report 73 30 December 2016 viii. Cycle Share
Fig. 64 The bike share system in Hangzhou, PRC extends the reach of the transit system – last km connectivity. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: A system of shared bike transit that uses stations and bike docks (or a dockless system) to allow users to take free or cheap trips short distances by parking the bike at a different station from where it was taken. Why cycle share matters: • Cycle share provides last km connectivity between residential, commercial, and transit stations. • Cycle share increases overall access without contributing to traffic congestion. • Cycle share attracts new cyclists and encourages mode shift. • Cycle share improves social equality when membership is offered to low income residents. Common issues: • Many public transport systems do not satisfy “last km” demands nor provide for short-distance or leisure trips. Recommendations: • Ensure adequate financial and policy support from the government. Cycle share should be supported and subsidized similar to other modes of mass transit. • Locate stations at major points of interest and trip attraction and generation, and especially at transit stops. Dockless systems allow riders to park where they will. • Integrate the payment system with other transport systems. • Invest in high-quality cycles that include step through frames, adjustable seat height, solid (airless) tires, lights, reflectors, baskets, and bells.
Final Report 74 30 December 2016 ix. Modern Pedicabs
Fig. 65 Modern pedicabs for tourists in Barcelona, Spain. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: A modern type of tricycle designed to carry passengers on a for hire basis. Why pedicabs matter: • Pedicabs provide a convenient for-hire transport option without the externalities associated with taxis and other motorized modes. • Pedicabs provide jobs for low-skilled residents. Common issues: • Pedicab systems benefit from government start-up funding and regulation. Recommendations: • Partner with local businesses on pedicab branding and advertising to subsidize • Choose modern pedicabs that can contribute to the local aesthetic. • Allow pedicabs in popular tourist and commercial areas. • Use pedicabs to provide transport for the mobility impaired.
Final Report 75 30 December 2016 x. Delivery Carts
Fig. 66 A handcart in Singapore allows for the delivery of a crate of goods in a pedestrian mall. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Any hand-powered delivery cart – bike truck, hand truck, push cart, electric trick, etc. Why delivery carts matter: • Delivery carts allow for movement of goods without the use of motorized vehicles. • Delivery carts are an important component of the “last km” cargo trip chain. Common issues: • In areas where access is limited (pedestrian streets, congested streets, no parking zones), delivering goods by traditional vehicle can be impossible. Recommendations: • Facilitating deliveries by hand-powered vehicles can help overcome opposition to non- motorized networks and decrease reliance on motorized vehicles. • Include delivery carts in the design and operation of streets and networks.
Final Report 76 30 December 2016
E. Transit Integration
Fig. 67 In Bangkok, Thailand, one can walk directly from the SkyTrain station to the shopping malls through a series of bridges. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Transit services and facilities need to be fully integrated into the design and operation of roads and streets. Connecting non-motorized travel with transit creates a symbiotic multi-modal system, improving transit ridership and overall mobility. Transit integration is paramount for inclusive streets.
Final Report 77 30 December 2016 i. Transit Station Access
Fig. 68 Access to this transit station in Guangzhou, PRC is via a walkway separate from the street. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Connections between a transit station and the surrounding area. Why transit station access matters: • Long detours, stairs, and other obstacles increase trip time for all riders and make transit less accessible to the mobility impaired. Common issues: • Transit stations are too often planned around vehicle infrastructure. Riders are forced to traverse long distances and navigate stairs to access station entrances. • Forcing patrons to climb stairs to access an at-grade station is counter-productive. Recommendations: • Incorporate transit station access with the walking and cycling network to ensure direct access to the street network. • Extend the physical footprint of transit stations to include access to and from origins and destinations in all directions. • Maximize retail space along routes to transit stations, as well as inside stations. • Minimize the use of bridges and tunnels – at-grade access is preferred.
Final Report 78 30 December 2016 ii. Walkways and Crosswalks at Bus Stops
Fig. 69 This bus stop in Singapore provides ample room for the station and pedestrian path. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: the location of transit (bus, BRT, LRT) stops, walkways, and crosswalks. Why walkways and crosswalks at transit stops matter: • Walkways allow patrons to access the transit stop. • Crosswalks allow patrons to cross the street to get to the transit stop. Common issues: • Where space is constrained, bus shelters are often built in the walkway. • Crosswalks are not always provided at transit stops, thereby increasing trip length for transit patrons. Recommendations: • Do not place bus shelters within the walkway. Instead narrow the roadway, build a bus bulb, route the walkway around the shelter, and/or integrate the shelter with adjacent buildings. • Include a crosswalk near every bus stop so that patrons may safely cross the street. Where possible, direct crossings toward popular destinations. • Provide pedestrian refuge islands and other traffic calming features to increase safety. • Locate crosswalks behind the bus stop (in the direction of travel) as it is safer to cross there. Locate bus stops at the far side of intersections.
Final Report 79 30 December 2016 iii. Cycleways at Transit stops
Fig. 70 Example of a cycleway routed behind a bus stop in Changzhou, PRC. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Definition: the location of transit (bus, BRT, LRT) stops and cycleways. Why cycleways at transit stops matter: • Cycleways offer direct connections by bike to transit stops. This increases last km connectivity. Common issues: • Where space is constrained, bus shelters often conflict with cycleways. Recommendations: • Allow adequate space for cycleways and bus stops. Where space is constrained, add a bus stop on a bus bulb, or narrow the cycleway at the stop. • Locate cycleways behind bus stops where possible, and design so that patrons queuing do not enter the cycleway. • Reduce cyclist/bus conflict through smart planning. For example, where the bus stop is directly after an intersection, program bike traffic signals to allow cyclists to pass the stop before the bus arrives.
Final Report 80 30 December 2016 iv. Cycle Parking at Transit Stops & Stations
Fig. 71 Bicycle parking at Metro entrance in Seoul, Korea. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Secure parking for bicycles at transit stops and stations. Why secure parking at transit stations matters: • Bike parking at transit stops and stations facilitates multi-modal integration, especially the “last kilometer connection”. • Patrons are more likely to ride when secure bike parking facilities are available. Common issues: • Bike parking must be managed so that it does not become disorderly and/or block access to the station. Recommendations: • Include secure bicycle parking at transit hubs. • Monitor and adjust the amount of bike parking according to the demand – add more bike racks if necessary.
Final Report 81 30 December 2016 v. Bike Sharing at Transit Stops & Stations
Fig. 72 In Shanghai, PRC a bike share station is located near a busy transit terminal. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Locating bike share stations at transit stops and stations. Why bike sharing at transit stations matters: • Bike sharing at transit stops and stations facilitates multi-modal integration, especially the “last kilometer connection”. • Providing bike share at transit facilitates non-motorized travel and encourages people to ride bikes. Common issues: • Bike share systems are not always coordinated with transit systems. If both stations are located in the same place, and both systems use the same payment type, then the systems are more inclusive. Recommendations: • Monitor the demand for bike share and adjust the number of bikes accordingly. • Incorporate bike share during the planning stage of the transit system.
Final Report 82 30 December 2016 vi. Transit Mall
Fig. 73 Gold Museum station along a transit mall in Bogotá, Colombia. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Definition: Street or series of streets where transit traffic is privileged. Auto traffic is either prohibited or greatly restricted, while cycle traffic is generally allowed. Why transit malls matter: • Transit malls facilitate unimpeded transit movement outside the usual vehicle network. • Transit malls work best where the demand for transit is high and auto traffic would comprise transit efficiency. Common issues: • Commercial streets with mixed traffic can negatively impact the pedestrian environment. • Mixed traffic on busy corridors can create congestion and slow transit speed. Recommendations: • Select transit mall locations where limiting car access would improve mobility, attract economic activity, and reduce harmful emissions. • Locate transit malls along commercial areas such as shopping streets, or in between transit stations. • Limit deliveries to off-peak hours or along adjacent streets. Encourage cycle or hand truck deliveries, where possible. • Ensure adequate management and policing to improve public safety.
Final Report 83 30 December 2016
F. Traffic Calming
Fig. 74 Toronto, Canada. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
The combination of mainly physical measures that reduce the negative effects of motor vehicle use, alter driver behavior, and improve conditions for non-motorized street users. As opposed to traffic control devices that are regulatory and require enforcement, traffic calming measures send visual signals to motorists to slow down, and are therefore self-enforcing.44
44 ITE: Traffic Calming: State of the Practice, 1999
Final Report 84 30 December 2016 i. Neighbourhoods with speed restrictions
Fig. 75 Entrance to a traffic calming zone in Osaka, Japan. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: A defined area with a uniform speed limit (30 kph). Why neighborhoods with speed restrictions matter: • Restricting speeds provides a quieter and safer environment that is generally safer for children, quieter for residents, and more attractive for shopping and leisure. Common issues: • Uniform speed limits create unsafe conditions for pedestrians and cyclists. Recommendations: • Identify neighborhoods in need of speed restrictions. Zones work best within a clearly defined neighborhood. • Reinforce speed restrictions with traffic calming features such as speed humps and mini- roundabouts.
Final Report 85 30 December 2016 ii. Neighborhoods with Through Traffic Restrictions
Fig. 76 This diagonal diverter in Hong Kong, PRC forces motorists to turn left while allowing people on bikes and walking to proceed straight ahead. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: A traffic scheme that prevents cut-through traffic. Access for non-motorized vehicles is always permitted. Why restricting through traffic matters: • Cut-through traffic degrades the safety and environment of a neighborhood. Small local streets where people live and shop should not become short cuts for impatient drivers. Common issues: • Access for deliveries, residents, and emergency services must be preserved. Recommendations: • Typical techniques: • diagonal diverters • one way streets • turn restrictions • entry/exit restrictions • Residential parking permits • Vehicle-access permits
Final Report 86 30 December 2016 iii. Reduction of turning radius
Fig. 77 The addition of the striped area and bollards at this corner in Singapore force motorists to turn at a much slower speed. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Reducing the turning radius at a corner of an intersection, typically with curbs, markings and/or bollards. Why reducing turning radius matters: • Reducing the tuning radius can slow turning speeds, shorten crosswalks, and increase space for people at the corner—all of which greatly improves safety for pedestrians. Common issues: • Intersections are particularly dangerous areas for pedestrians and slowing vehicle turning speed can greatly improve safety. Recommendations: • Where the turning radius cannot be reduced, consider a traffic island and slip lane. • Test turning radius with temporary measures before committing to permanence.
Final Report 87 30 December 2016 iv. Curb Extension (Bulb outs)
Fig. 78 Curb extension and raised crosswalk in Hong Kong, PRC. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: An extension of the walkway into the roadway, typically where there is on-street parking. Why curb extensions matter: • Curb extensions reduce turning radius, shorten crosswalks, and increase space for people. • Can also be used to create more space to add a rain garden, vending space, bicycle parking, or other street furniture. Common issues: • Many intersections in Asian cities are oversized and curb extensions are an easy fix. Recommendation: • Add curb extensions wherever there is full-time on-street parking to define the parking area. • Include curb extensions wherever there is a midblock crosswalk to shorten the crossing.
Final Report 88 30 December 2016 v. Chicanes
Fig. 79 A chicane in Tokyo, Japan is filled with plants. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: A series of curb extensions and/or medians that alternate from one side of the street to the other, forming S-shaped curves. Can be created by alternating on-street parking. Why chicanes work: • Chicanes force drivers to swerve back and forth, thus reducing speed. Common issues: • Without visual or physical cues to slow down, motorists travel faster, thus creating safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists. Recommendation: • Use chicanes primarily on 1-way, 1-lane streets. With multiple lanes, drivers can avoid them by driving down the middle of the toad. • Use space created with chicanes to add bioswales for storm water management, mini-parks, café seating or street furniture.
Final Report 89 30 December 2016 vi. Speed Hump or Table
Fig. 80 Speed hump in Singapore. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Elevated portion of the roadway designed to slow vehicle by vertically displacing it. Typically, 3-6m in length and 75-100mm high. Can extend across the entire roadway (with provision for drainage) or just in the travel lane. Can be flat or round top. Why speed humps work: • Speed humps force drivers to slow to avoid discomfort or damage to their vehicle. • Most common traffic calming measure as it is easy to install and cost-effective. Common issues: • Without visual or physical cues to slow down, motorists travel faster, thus creating safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists. Recommendation: • Design so that crossing speed is 10 kph less than speed limit. • Generally not used on bus routes.
Final Report 90 30 December 2016 vii. Raised crossing
Fig. 81 Raised crosswalk in Brisbane, Australia, that ties directly into the sidewalk. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Speed table that provides a level crossing for pedestrians. Why raised crossings work: • Raised crossings force motorists to slow at the crossing, thus lessening any conflict with pedestrians. Common issues: • Without visual or physical cues to slow down, motorists travel faster, thus creating safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists. • Raised crossings require provisions for drainage. Recommendation: • Include curb extensions and/or median to accentuate the crossing. • Use detectable surfaces to ensure that pedestrians with visual impairments can detect the roadway given the lack of curb.
Final Report 91 30 December 2016 viii. Raised intersection
Fig. 82 Raised intersection in Brussels, Belgium. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Raised, flat area that covers the entire intersection. Typically raised to the height of the adjoining sidewalk. Ramps included on all approaches similar to that of a raised crosswalk. Why raised intersections work: • Raised intersections slow vehicle speeds at the point of conflict, prioritize foot traffic across the street. Common issues: • Without visual or physical cues to slow down, motorists travel faster, thus creating safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists. Recommendation: • Raised intersections can call attention to the historic or special nature of an intersection. • Use detectable surfaces to ensure that pedestrians with visual impairments can detect the roadway given the lack of curb.
Final Report 92 30 December 2016 ix. Mini-roundabout
Fig. 83 a mini-roundabout in residential area of Singapore. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: a roundabout consist of a circular island in the center of the intersection. Drivers yield on entry to circulating traffic. Normal roundabouts are for larger intersections and can have one or two lanes. Three lane roundabouts are to avoided. A signalized roundabout is known as a traffic circle. Mini-roundabouts are for smaller intersections of streets with up to one lane. Why roundabouts work: • Roundabouts reduce speed and conflicts at intersections. They eliminate the possibility of vehicle head-on collisions and turns across traffic. They are probably the safest intersection design. Common issues: • Traffic signals and stop signs can be ignored by motorists leading to collisions. Recommendation: • Consider mini-roundabouts for Tempo 30 areas. • Install rain gardens and public art in mini-roundabouts to improve overall streetscape.
Final Report 93 30 December 2016 x. Textured and/or Colorized Pavements
Fig. 84 A commercial street with textured and colorized pavements in Singapore. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Any paving material that is not standard asphalt or concrete. Can be brick, pavers, textured asphalt, imprinted asphalt, colored concrete, or other. Why textured/colored pavement works: • Textured and/or colored pavement helps street users to identify special districts, demarcate lanes reserved for a particular mode, or highlight certain portions of the roadway such as crosswalks and roundabouts. Common issues: • Motorists will assume that they can drive where ever they want - texture and colour help to distinguish special areas of the road. Recommendations: • Use texture and colour to differentiate between different uses. Common colour coding is green for bikes, red for transit, blue for disabled, and pavers for parking spaces. • Use colour on bike and transit lanes at conflict points, such as through intersections to at driveways. • Accentuate textured and/or colored pavement with standard traffic markings. Do not rely on textured and/or colored pavements for speed reduction or traffic calming.
Final Report 94 30 December 2016
G. Green Infrastructure
Fig. 85 Stormwater management system along road in Bandung, Indonesia. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Roads and streets make up a large percentage of a town or city. Adding green infrastructure can play an important role in contributing to weather protection and climate resilience.
Final Report 95 30 December 2016 i. Landscaping
Fig. 86 A well landscaped street in Shanghai, PRC. Trees provide shade for pedestrians, while other plants improve the streetscape and help to absorb stormwater. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: planting trees and plants in the streetscape, including street trees, ground cover, planters, and hanging plants. Why landscaping matters: • Landscaping confers a number of benefits. Trees create shade and rows of trees creates rhythm which tends to slow drivers. Flowers, bushes, and grasses make the streetscape more attractive and can help to manage stormwater. Common issues: • Landscaping needs to be maintained and managed to function properly. Recommendation: • Incorporate landscape wherever and whenever possible, but ensure it benefits users and is well maintained. • Use native plants that require minimal maintenance.
Final Report 96 30 December 2016 ii. Bioswales
Fig. 87 Rain garden in Brooklyn, USA with covered inlet from gutter. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Definition: A planted area designed to capture, and filter stormwater runoff and increase rainwater infiltration. A rain garden is a bioswale at the curb. A sponge park is a bioswale which filters stormwater before it drains into a waterway. Why bioswales work: • Before roads were paved, wetlands and other natural systems absorbed stormwater; bioswales replicate these natural systems. • Stormwater stresses sewer infrastructure, sometimes causing waste water to overflow into waterways. Common issues: • Bioswales need to be maintained and managed to function properly. Recommendations: • Incorporate bioswales and other stormwater management devices in the streetscape wherever possible.
Final Report 97 30 December 2016 iii. Recycled Water
Fig. 88 In 2010 the polluted Donghaochong canal in Guangzhou, PRC was upgraded by recycled water to a popular recreational site. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Recycled water is wastewater that is treated to remove solids and impurities and used for non-potable purposes including irrigation, water features, recharging groundwater aquifers, and/or to meet other commercial and industrial water needs. Why using recycled water matters: • Using recycled can reduce the use of freshwater, therefore saving money and energy. Common issues: • Recycled water is not potable (not for drinking). Recommendations: • Use recycled water to irrigate landscaping and to create water features.
Final Report 98 30 December 2016 iv. Solar Power
Fig. 89 Solar power is used to support public facilities in Singapore. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Solar power uses panels to absorb the sun's rays as a source of energy for generating electricity or heating. Why solar power matters: • In cities where the electrical grid is unstable (leading to loss of power for traffic signals), solar power can provide continuous power. • Using solar power to run parking meters, bike share stations, and other infrastructure can eliminate the need for expensive wiring. • As technology improves, solar power will become cheaper and more reliable. Common issues: • Many cities still have unstable power grids. Infrastructure that must be linked to these grids is unreliable. Recommendations: • Use solar power to generate electricity for street furniture like parking meters, traffic signals, lighting, and illuminated signage.
Final Report 99 30 December 2016
H. Visibility & Information
Fig. 90 A street with signs and markings in Hong Kong, PRC. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Lights, signs, and markings improve safety, support urban navigation, and ensure clarity on the rules of the street.
Final Report 100 30 December 2016 i. Lighting
Fig. 91 Main street in Harbin, PRC lit up for the night. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Definition: Lighting includes light from lamp posts, building sconces, pavement, or other sources that illuminate public space. Why lighting matters: • Lighting is a safety measure – motorists and others can see each other and avoid collisions. • Lighting is a security measure - perpetrators can be seen and avoided, and people are attracted to a place which creates safety in numbers. • Lighting promotes physical fitness, sustainability, and social cohesion by encouraging walking and cycling after dark. Common issues: • Lack of lighting makes places less safe, less secure, less accessible, and less inclusive. • Lighting requires energy, which can be expensive. Recommendations: • Provide lighting along all public streets, walkways, cycleways, and parks. Lights can be at regular intervals or grouped to highlight particular locations. • Ensure lighting is on during evening and night time hours, as well as in the early morning hours during winter when the sun rises later. • Provide lighting at intersections and street crossings so that they are brighter than the rest of the street. • Scale lighting to intended user, including higher lights for roadway and lower lights over walkways. • Coordinate street lighting with lights on buildings, from storefronts, and elsewhere.
Final Report 101 30 December 2016 ii. Markings
Fig. 92 Markings in Hong Kong, PRC advising people to look left (or right) for oncoming traffic. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Markings are lines, symbols, and words placed on the pavement that provide information to users. Markings within the roadway are typically uniform, while those outside the roadway can be more varied. Why markings matter: • Markings can be used to provide information on the rules of the road; indicate appropriate street use, including crossings, bike lanes, or parking; warnings to help keep street users safe; or directions to support way finding. • Markings are useful to alter the design of a street, either as a temporal change or ahead of a reconstruction project. Common issues: • Markings fade over time and must be constantly replaced. Recommendation: • Follow regulatory conventions for markings in the roadway to provide a uniform environment for vehicle operators. • Utilize as few markings as possible so that streets do not become cluttered.
Final Report 102 30 December 2016 iii. Signage
Fig. 93 Signs in Singapore. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Signs are placards which provide information to users. They can be used for regulation, advice, and direction. Signs within the roadway are typically uniform, while those outside the roadway can be more varied. Why signage matters: • Signage can be used to provide information on the rules of the road; indicate appropriate street use, including crossings, bike lanes, or parking; warnings to help keep street users safe; and/or directions to support way finding. Common issues: • Too many signs or signs that are cluttered can confuse and cause people to ignore important information. Recommendations: • Follow regulatory conventions for signage in the roadway to provide a uniform environment for vehicle operators. • Use only the minimal number of signs required to convey information. Symbols are better than words as they can be understood by speakers of different languages. • Ensure street design and signage are complimentary. Signs should not contradict what a user infers--a 20 kph speed limit sign on a highway will likely be ignored. • Size signs for different users – drivers require larger font sizes and simpler signs because they are reading at higher speeds. • Place signs on existing hardware, such as streetlamps, for efficiency.
Final Report 103 30 December 2016 iv. Wayfinding
Fig. 94 This wayfinding system in Yichang, PRC, includes maps and directional signs with symbols. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Wayfinding is the act of orienting oneself within a physical space and navigating from place to place. In the context of streets and roads, wayfinding refers to the maps, signs, and markings that aid in orientation and navigation. Why wayfinding matters: • Wayfinding supports efficient and safe navigation of a city. Common issues: • Different people orient and navigate differently. Some prefer a time-based system, others a visual system, others verbal directions. It is important to incorporate all methods in a wayfinding system. Recommendations: • Provide ample information, including both time and distance measurements, and ensure key information is posted at regular intervals. • Use symbols instead of words, as they can be more broadly understood. • Use wayfinding approaches that compliments the intuitive ways that people orient and navigate, from landmarks to time to street grid to the sun. Wayfinding systems succeed best when they support this underlying legibility. • Coordinate wayfinding with new technologies such as QR codes, URLs, etc. The acts of orientation and navigation are rapidly changing as people rely more and more on global positioning systems; however, technology may not be equitably distributed or available, and physical confirmation is valuable.
Final Report 104 30 December 2016
I. Space for Place
Fig. 95 A plaza in Bonifacio High Street, Manila, Philippines. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Streets make up the majority of public space in a city. They are where people travel, shop, exercise, and socialize.
Final Report 105 30 December 2016 i. Street Furniture
Fig. 96 This low wall surrounding a sculpture garden in Hong Kong, PRC doubles as a seating area. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Street furniture refers to objects and equipment placed in and around streets, including benches, bollards, public art, fountains, shading stands, tram shelters, maps, waste receptacles, vending booths, public toilets, newsstands, mail/post boxes, street lights, traffic signals, bicycle racks, etc. Why street furniture matters: • Benches are essential to provide resting places for the elderly and disabled that are necessary for supporting access for all. • Street furniture can reinforce different public realm functions, particularly with regard to pedestrian movement. Common issues: • Street furniture is sometimes considered optional; however, it is not. Sheltered places to wait for the bus are as necessary as windshields on a car, and places for socializing are as integral to a street as turn lanes and crosswalks. Recommendations: • Design and locate street furniture so that it is protected from errant vehicles, to guard against damage to the equipment and users. • Establish a funding and service mechanism to ensure that street furniture is well maintained and updated. Shoddy and outdated objects and equipment detract from high-quality street space.
Final Report 106 30 December 2016 ii. Shading
Fig. 97 Covered walkway in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Artificial or natural protection from rain and sun, such as covered walkways and trees Why shading matters: • Shade protects people from the scorching sun, the drenching rain, and the gusty wind. Whether a street has shade or not will sometimes whether it is used or not – people almost always walk on the shady side of the street when it is hot and sunny. Common issues: • Inadequate shade exposes residents to the elements and makes walking and cycling unpleasant, and waiting for the bus unbearable. Recommendations: • Connect buildings, residential areas, and transit stations with covered walkways. • Integrate shading devices with other street furniture and provide sufficient lighting and visibility for security. • Use structures and plants that honor local design or reflect local characteristics – tensile structures in hot and arid climates, plant arbors in tropical climates.
Final Report 107 30 December 2016 iii. Street Art
Fig. 98 Street art in Shanghai, PRC invites reflection and introspection. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: Street art refers to murals, sculpture, graphics, sound installations, and other artistic elements placed in and around the street. Why street art matters: • Public art contributes beauty and interest to the streetscape. It can improve identity of areas which otherwise lack recognizable features, and provide a landmark which can identify support wayfinding. Common issues: • Public art must be protected and maintained. Recommendation: • Include public art in places that lack identity and distinctiveness or are otherwise drab. • Include public art for wayfinding and directional purposes. • Commission local artists, including the disadvantaged and students. • Invest in low-cost and simple public art. The best design response is often the simplest: a repeated single element across a wider area, or a simple transformation of everyday objects can be just as effective.
Final Report 108 30 December 2016
iv. Space for Vendors
Fig. 99 Space for vendors provide basic shading and electricity in Hong Kong, PRC. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: An area within or adjacent to the public ROW for markets and vendors. The space can be formal or informal, permanent or temporary. Why space for vendors matters: • Street vending and markets can contribute to the economic viability local communities, support vibrant public space, and improve safety of the surrounding structures. • Designated space provides citizens with secure and dignified areas for the trade of goods and services. They help small-scale entrepreneurs bring new products to the marketplace. • Street vending offers convenient access to goods and services for a wide range of income groups, especially those of lesser means. Common issues: • Street vending and markets can take business from established merchants. They can overtax public services and utilities such as water, electricity, sanitation, and toilets. • Street vending and markets need to be located and managed so as to not interfere with footpaths, driveways, the carriageway, and transit facilities. Recommendations: • Locate street vending and markets where there is demand for goods and services, including near major intersections, public transport stops, and/or parks. • Work with established merchants to ensure that vendors contribute to the overall economic well-being of the place. • Provide supportive infrastructure, such as cooperatively managed services and utilities. • Locate and manage street vending and markets so they do not interfere with mobility or block access to transit or buildings. • Scale market size as appropriate. The market can be larger during times of lower traffic (weekends), but must be smaller during rush hours.
Final Report 109 30 December 2016 v. Playgrounds
Fig. 100 Playground beneath an elevated road in Singapore. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: places with equipment and space for children to socialize and play. Why playgrounds matter: • Playgrounds provide a safe space for children to play, explore, exercise and socialize—activities which are crucial to healthy childhood development. • Playgrounds improve social cohesion as neighborhood children and parents get to meet and interact. Common issues: • Lack of safe area for children to play and interact can contribute to social isolation and health issues, such as childhood obesity. • Playgrounds that are not well maintained can be unsafe. Recommendations: • Provide safe and interesting areas for children to play throughout a city. • Include equipment such as swings, bars, and climbing structures to support physical activity. • Ensure maintenance plan is in place to support upkeep and maintain safety.
Final Report 110 30 December 2016 vi. Play Space
Fig. 101 Sprinklers in the plaza in Harbin, PRC are wonderful places for children (and adults) to have fun. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Definition: plazas with programming such as seasonal entertainment, passive play areas, events, and markets. Why plazas with programming matter: • Plazas are natural gathering places and to provide programming for people gives them something to do. Common issues: • Plazas can become underused and/or misused, especially at night and off-season. Recommendations: • Provide seating and passive play in plazas. • Program plazas according to the season.
Final Report 111 30 December 2016 vii. Pocket Parks
Fig. 102 This pocket park in Manila, Philippines, doubles as a walkway between buildings. Photo courtesy of ITDP.
Definition: A small park accessible to the general public. Why pocket parks matter: • Pocket parks offer a space for resting or socializing. Parks contribute to social cohesion, support mental health, and encourage physical activity. Common issues: • Many cities lack public space, and do not have room to build large parks. A series of pocket parks can help fill the need for tranquil public spaces. Recommendations: • Ensure the space is inviting and publicly accessible through investing in design, maintaining landscaping, and including lighting. • Include seating, play areas, community garden space, or other elements to encourage active use. • Support social cohesion through offering community building opportunities, such as gardening.
Final Report 112 30 December 2016 viii. Parklets
Fig. 103 Informal parklet in the French District of Shanghai, PRC. Photo courtesy of Michael R. King.
Definition: Small temporary or permanent parks, often installed in car parking spaces. Why parklets matter: • Parklets offer many of the same social benefits as pocket parks and playgrounds—they provide space for socializing or relaxing and can support community building. • Parklets offer a symbol that public space should be used by all of society—not just restricted to motorists. Common issues: • Distribution of public space in cities is unequal. By some estimates, 80% of urban public space is given over to car-centric infrastructure. Recommendations: • Support parklets as an extension of the walkway, thereby creating additional space for walking, seating, cycle racks, and/or landscaping. • Create programs to incentivize local businesses to build and maintain parklets. This works particularly well for coffee shops and other cafes that offer food to go. • Combine parklets with traffic calming measures, such as chicanes and curb extensions.
Final Report 113 30 December 2016 ix. Street Fairs & Events
Fig. 104 Sundays in Bogotá, Colombia, when numerous streets are closed to motorized traffic and cyclists are allowed free reign. Photo courtesy of Lloyd Wright.
Definition: Repurposing streets during select periods to allow for walking, cycling, socializing, performances, and/or public fairs. Why street fairs and events matter: • Street fairs and other street events are successful strategy for creating temporary public space that supports community and encourages physical activity. • These events allow local officials to experiment with alternative street uses. Common issues: • Public space is severely lacking in the majority of Asian cities. Street events allow for a more equitable use of space. Recommendations: • Design flexible streets that support a range of uses so that they can be transformed to be used for activity that supports the greatest social benefit. • Designate a group with the city planning or transport department that is responsible for developing programming and coordinating logistics with other departments. • Measure and evaluate success of these events and use the experience to inform future street design decisions.
Final Report 114 30 December 2016
III. Operationalizing Inclusive Street Design
Transforming car-centric roads into inclusive streets can be accomplished through design and policy, but requires a high degree of political buy in. This section provides guidance to help build political will and operationalize inclusive street design, including cost and implementation considerations, as well as the importance integrating inclusive street concepts into planning processes and setting quantifiable metrics, as well as ideas for engaging and educating stakeholders.
A. Inclusive Streets Cost Considerations Planning for inclusive street investment requires exploring a range of upfront costs and ongoing expenses. Cost considerations include planning expenses, such as technical experts hired for design and engineering; capital expenses, such as infrastructure and construction costs; and operating and maintenance expenses, such as salaries for city employees and annual cost of upkeep.
Investment in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure is relatively inexpensive. As shown in Fig. 106 Cost estimates of inclusive streets interventions., bike-sharing systems cost about $20,000 per station while cycleway infrastructure costs $100,000 per kilometer. On average, BRT costs $6,000,000 per kilometer(Guangzhou). Meanwhile, capital costs for a flyover is approximately $24,000,000 per kilometer.
Good street design costs the same or less than bad, and in the long run, can be much more cost effective – especially when maintenance costs, externalities, and co-benefits are considered. As described in the Cheonggyecheon example, above, city officials found that removing the overpass and investing in pedestrian infrastructure Fig. 105 Cost estimates of inclusive streets interventions. Image courtesy of and public transit was significantly less Lloyd Wright, Asian Development Bank. expensive in up-front capital costs, and cost less for maintenance. Plus, the project reinvigorated the neighborhood, bringing economic activity that was not there prior to the improvements. To separate modes and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists, several cities have installed bioswales, which have the added benefit of helping to manage storm water run off, thus reducing the burden on sewer systems and resulting in additional cost savings.
Social equity considerations, including whether or not street infrastructure will be accessible to disadvantaged and disabled populations, should also be considered part of the cost. For example, cities are finding that designing streets to support accessibility of disabled residents can save transport costs in the long run by reducing paratransit expenses. Poor pedestrian conditions—such as lack of curbs and
Final Report 115 30 December 2016 ramps, and damaged or non-existent sidewalks—are the most cited barrier preventing the mobility impaired from accessing transit.45 Meanwhile, paratransit trips are expensive, costing New York City around $60 per ride, totaling $456 million per year.46 Investing some of this budget into inclusive streets would free mobility impaired to navigate the city without requiring private para-transit services.
B. Stages of Implementation The timeline for inclusive street projects has four distinct phases: scoping, preliminary design, detailed design, and construction. Before this timeline, however, projects typically officially begin during long term planning process. As described above, mainstreaming inclusive street design into existing strategic planning efforts can help to set goals and ensure smart investments are made. During long-term planning processes, project and policy goals are identified and a set of standard project metrics are decided upon.
As shown in Fig. 106, the first phase of the inclusive street timeline focuses on scoping the project to understand existing conditions. The preliminary design phase focuses on collecting information and drafting a design proposal. In the detailed design phase, practitioners identify engineering specifications, finalize designs, and award construction contracts. In the final construction phase, the project is built.
Fig. 106 Phases of Project Design and Implementation
45 Rosenbloom, Sandra. Transportation Patterns and Problems of People with Disabilities. Accessed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11420/ 46 Meyer, David. How the MTA Can Improve Access-a-Ride Service While Cutting Costs. Streets Blog. Accessed: http://nyc.streetsblog.org/2016/09/20/how-the-mta-can-improve-access-a-ride-service-while-cutting-costs/
Final Report 116 30 December 2016
C. Mainstreaming Inclusive Street Design Inclusive street design cannot be an afterthought. It must be planned for, thoughtfully designed, and integrated into local policy. Many cities have incorporated inclusive design into existing planning processes, and several have developed separate pedestrian, bicycle, and/or safety plans. Approaches include the following.
• Comprehensive plans. Long-range plans Fig. 107 Active transport hierarchies, like Portland, Oregon's shown that identify inclusive streets as a here, establishes clear priorities for urban practitioners. Source from city of Portland. priority can set the stage for investment. A comprehensive planning process might identify active transport mode share targets, and reflects the importance of inclusive streets for achieving social, economic, and environmental quality goals. Some cities have also established a hierarchy of transport modes in their comprehensive plans. For example, the city of Portland, Oregon included a “green hierarchy” that prioritizes investment in active transport modes (see Fig. 108).47 Zoning requirements and other policies outlined in these plans also reflect that inclusive streets are a priority.
• Transportation and mobility plans. Transportation plans typically include specific mode share targets and identify infrastructure needs and priorities. While some cities have chosen to have separate bicycle or pedestrian plans, it is ideal to include all modes in one, integrated plan. Inclusive mobility plans focus on creating multi-modal transport networks, with special attention on connecting non- motorized corridors to public transit, and ensuring adequate pedestrian and cycle facilities along the majority of roads.
• Road safety plan. Cities are increasingly creating plans that include specific targets to reduce injuries and fatalities and identify strategies to improve road safety for pedestrians and cyclists. These plans—increasingly called Vision Zero plans—typically prioritize design interventions such as physically separating modes, improving pedestrian crossings, and reducing vehicle speed. Sweden has been a leader in the field, aiming to completely eliminate traffic deaths. The country is on its way: through reducing speed limits and adding a combination of pedestrian overpasses, zebra stripes, flashing lights, and speed bumps to more than 12,000 intersections, pedestrian deaths in Sweden halved over a five year period.48 When asked why their strategy has been so successful, the program’s director recently replied “We simply do not accept any deaths or injuries on our roads.”
47 City of Portland. Comprehensive Plan Update. 2014. Accessed here: https://www.portlandoregon.gov/bps/article/441509 48 The Economist. Why Sweden Has So Few Road Deaths. Feb 26th 2014. Accessed: http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist- explains/2014/02/economist-explains-16
Final Report 117 30 December 2016
• Street design guides. Design guides include technical requirements and detailed specifications for application at the street level. Adopting inclusive street design guides promote access for all and can help inclusive streets become the new normal. These guides are typically organized to provide specifications depending on the street typology. For example, Better Streets, Better Cities, published by the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy and the Environmental Planning Collaborative, includes detailed recommendations tailored to street typologies in India. Guides such as this one can serve as a helpful reference to inform local design guides, which are sometimes adopted as regulations.
D. Stakeholder Engagement in the Planning Process Community stakeholders—including residents, government representatives, non-governmental organizations, business owners, faith leaders, and others—can contribute to planning processes. Stakeholder engagement helps to ensure planners have a clear understanding of mobility needs and challenges, and helps to generate projects that are locally appropriate. Crucially, effective community engagement can help to build political support for project implementation, and can educate and empower individuals to be active partners Fig. 108 Participants in a stakeholder meeting in Vientiane, Lao PDR discussing a in supporting inclusive street design in the proposed NMT network. Photo courtesy of Dominique Le Roux. long-term.
Depending on the stage in the project, as well as goals of the participation process, structure and facilitation of stakeholder engagement may look different. Coming equipped with maps and renderings, as well as a prepared list of answers to frequently asked questions, (such as questions about projected economic and congestion reduction benefits) will help to make the case for inclusive street projects.
In the Seoul, South Korea case study earlier in this guide, government officials engaged stakeholders from local businesses and neighborhoods throughout the Cheonggyecheon planning process. Practitioners talked with the community about the costs and benefits of restoring the stream versus investing in an expressway, and consulted stakeholders on how to address safety issues, improve mobility, and reenergize businesses. Concerns about loss of business during construction were a major issue, and so a plan to provide financial support and subsidies to business owners and provide special arrangements for street vendors was developed and implemented.
In Vientiane, Lao PDR, the identification and engagement of the stakeholders has been an ongoing process in an inclusive street project. For Vientiane NMT Proposals project by ITDP as an example, stakeholder meetings were conducted with local organizations and individuals, in which the draft proposals for non-motorized transport (NMT) was presented and feedback on these proposals collected.
Final Report 118 30 December 2016
The stakeholders including Lao PDR Government officials, Asian Development Bank officials, Lao Development Bank, Banque pour le Commerce Exterieur Lao Bank, Deputy Village Chief and residents from Ban Anou and Ban Mixay and Businesses on Rue Francois Ngin, whose feedback was provided and incorporated as appropriate in the proposals.
Other stakeholder engagement might focus on educating local practitioners and government officials to build technical capacity. In Metro Manila, Philippines, for example, the Metro Manila Development Authority recently organized a workshop for local officials, consultants, and other practitioners aimed at building understanding of non-motorized transit street design. The workshop included lectures from international experts, walking tours, and assignments. The group focused on three distinct study areas: one along the waterfront, one focused on transit station accessibility, and a third focused on cycleways. Participants were divided into breakout groups and given a list of things to look for, observe, and photograph, including good and bad intersection and sidewalk design, and overall accessibility. Participants were asked to think about how lessons from the workshop could be applied to the projects they were actively working on. Similar workshops have been held in cities around the world, including Delhi, Jakarta, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro, and Mexico City, with great success.
PLANNING FOR MEANINGFUL COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Much has been written on the subject of community engagement; some helpful lessons are summarized below.
• Engage an advisory committee with representation from a range of stakeholder groups. Membership may include residents, government representatives, non-governmental organizations, business owners, faith leaders, as well as others that have an interest. The advisory committee should be the planning team’s main point of community contact, and members of the group should be willing to help coordinate broader community engagement efforts.
• Remove barriers and create incentives for participation. Elderly, disabled, and disadvantaged populations face several barriers to participation in planning processes. They may be less likely to hear about opportunities for public comment, have a hard time accessing meetings, be unable to take time away from other commitments, or be skeptical of the process. To overcome these obstacles, planners may need to bring the process to the community by holding meetings in several different neighborhoods with several different groups. Planners may also consider incentivizing or compensating participants through providing transport vouchers, childcare services, or food at meetings.
• Create engagement opportunities throughout the planning process. Spreading engagement opportunities throughout a planning process can also help refine and improve inclusive street design. Planners should identify key decision-making points, and plan to engage with stakeholder groups around these junctures.
• Publicize progress and continue to engage stakeholders, even after implementation. Through engagement in a planning process, participants will become local experts. This newly engaged network could help to educate the general public, and provide support for implementation. One way to maintain momentum is to publicize progress toward plan implementation, and call on stakeholders that participated to be ambassadors. Formalizing the role of community members to support plan implementation can be highly beneficial.
E. Monitoring Project Progress Identifying goals and monitoring progress are important to long-term project success. Setting clear, quantifiable goals and collecting data before and after implementation is crucial to track impacts, justify
Final Report 119 30 December 2016 investment, and gather evidence to support replication. While each locality will identify its own goals and metrics, examples from past projects, provided here ideas for how to set up an effective monitoring plan. i. Identifying goals and metrics Cities have a number of priorities, from safety goals, such as reduction in pedestrian injury, to social considerations, such as improved accessibility for low-income communities. Goals and associated metrics will vary depending on project scope, so they should be scaled accordingly.49 For example, mode shift along a four-block long project may be challenging to measure, but retail sales are quite relevant at this scale.
Tab. 1, below, includes sample goals as well as short and long-term metrics that may be used to track the goals. The first row includes examples of goals that cities have used in inclusive planning processes. The second row lists long term and area-wide metrics that could be tracked to measure progress toward these goals, and the last row lists a sample of short term and localized metrics.
Tab. 1 Sample goals and metrics for measuring project impact. ACCESS HEALTH/SAFETY ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT SOCIAL . Diversify transport . Reduce . Revitalize . Reduce GHG . Improve overall options pedestrian/cyclist neighborhood emissions access for . Improve access to injuries and . Increase economic . Reduce PM disadvantaged transit stations fatalities activity emissions and underserved . populations . Improve access to Increase physical . Attract business . Reduce rates of . bike and pedestrian activity respiratory Increase public . Cost difference vs. space usage corridors car-centric disease . Improve quality SAMPLE GOALS infrastructure of life for residents
. Mode share . Number of crashes . Number of empty . GHG emissions . User satisfaction before/after and injuries storefronts/office before/after surveys . Number of people before/after spaces before/after . Rates of before/after living near transit or . Minutes of . Value of retail sales respiratory
LONG TERM non-motorized physical activity before/after disease
– corridors before/after before/after before/after . Rates of obesity before/after METRICS
. Increase/decrease . Traffic speeds . Pedestrian volume . Particulate matter . Public space – in transit use before/after before/after emissions usage . Projected capital before/after before/after and maintenance . Noise levels METRICS
SHORT TERM cost comparisons before/after
49 US Federal Highway Administration. Evaluating the Economic Benefits of Non-motorized Transportation. March 2015. Accessed: http://www.pedbikeinfo.org/cms/downloads/NTPP_Economic_Benefits_White_Paper.pdf
Final Report 120 30 December 2016 ii. Methods for data collection Measuring progress toward goals requires base lining conditions before a project is implemented. Depending on the metric, data collection will happen through surveys, or through collecting from existing sources, potentially including government agencies, NGOs, or development banks. Surveys allow practitioners to collect information to inform project design and to set a baseline. The recently released Global Street Design Guide50 suggests the following considerations for survey design:
• Collect data before and after a project to provide comparisons and capture impacts. • Collect measurements during different seasons, at various hours of the day, and during weekends and weekdays to be able to comprehensively compare how the use and function of the street changes after project implementation. • When measuring longer-term changes in function, use, and performance, measurements should be collected after multiple months and years for reliable comparison. • For the most accurate comparisons, be consistent with locations when collecting measurements, as well as times and durations when measuring use and function.
Tab. 2, below lists common types of surveys conducted to prepare for inclusive streets improvements, including sample objectives, methodology, and outputs. Depending on the scope of a given project, practitioners select relevant metrics then perform before and after surveys.
Tab. 2 Common survey needs, objectives, methodology, and outputs for inclusive street projects. TRAFFIC OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY OUTPUTS Pedestrian . Baseline pedestrian volume . Count number of pedestrians . Map of pedestrian volumes volume and identify high‐priority during peak hours on each on each street in scope area streets for improvement street before and after . Database of findings project implementation Non-motorized . Baseline non-motorized . Counts (video or manual) . Map of non-motorized traffic traffic volume traffic volume and speed along roads, streets, paths, volumes on select streets and speed . Understand potential for and at intersections before . Database of findings additional and/or larger and after project facilities implementation Motorized . Baseline motorized traffic . Video tape target . Map of motorized traffic traffic volume volume and speed intersections before and after volumes on select streets and speed . Understand potential for project implementation . Database of findings
reorganizing traffic lanes Crossing . Locate where pedestrians and . Document crossing patterns . Map of crossing movements demand cyclists cross in order to for pedestrians and cyclists on and volume of pedestrians identify appropriate location select streets before and after and cyclists for marked crossings project implementation . Database of findings Bike parking . Locate where bike parking . Document location and . Map of bike parking locations demand facilities may be needed number of bikes parked in and demand scope area before and after . Database of findings project implementation Noise level . Locate where motorized . Use noise monitor to measure . Map of noise levels traffic contributes to noise decibel levels before and after . Database of findings pollution project implementation INFRASTRUCTURE OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY OUTPUTS
50 National Association of City Transport Officials. Global Street Design Guide. 2016.
Final Report 121 30 December 2016
Sidewalk . Locate areas where sidewalk . Document severity of damage . Map of sidewalk quality in the pavement pavement is sub-standard on sidewalks in the scope scope area quality area before and after project . Database of findings implementation Sidewalk . Locate obstacles that need to . Document obstacles on . Map of obstacles obstruction be relocated or removed to sidewalks in the scope area (categorized) on sidewalks in create high‐quality sidewalks before and after project the scope area implementation . Database of findings Cycle lanes . Identify existing bike lanes . Document existing bike lane . Map of existing bike lanes and and lane quality to inform location, quality, width, and details on their quality design proposals degree of separation from . Database of findings vehicles before and after project implementation Greenway and . Identify existing and potential . Document existing NMT paths . Map of existing NMT paths path network paths and greenway corridors before and after project . Map of target greenway for inclusion in design implementation corridors proposals . Site visits to potential . Database of findings greenway corridors and expert assessment of potential Street cross‐ . Develop a base-map for . Document existing building‐ . CAD map of existing street sections future street design to‐building cross‐sections cross ‐sections improvements (incl. width of setback, . Database of findings sidewalk, and curb‐curb traffic lanes) of streets in scope area before and after
project implementation
Intersection . Improve intersection design . Document intersection . Documentation of existing features and traffic signal phasing designs (e.g., pedestrian intersections refuge islands, curb lengths, shade), and traffic signal phasing before and after project implementation Public transport . Locate public transport stops . Document bus and other . Map of public transport stops in need of NMT transit routes and stops with routes and stops improvements on‐board surveying before . Database of findings and after project implementation Shade . Locate where shade is needed . Document existing shade . Map of existing and to improve comfort of people (e.g., trees, buildings, covered recommended shading walkways, etc.) and identify . Database of findings areas for improvement before and after project implementation Utility . Locate existing drainage, . Document drainage . Map drainage entrances, infrastructure electricity poles, light poles, entrances, electricity and light electricity poles, light poles, and cables in the scope area poles in scope area before and cables in the scope area that need to (or can) be and after project . Database of findings redesigned or relocated as implementation part of the proposed NMT improvements
Final Report 122 30 December 2016
Street furniture . Locate existing and needed . Document existing and . Map of existing and needed street furniture (public needed street furniture in street furniture seating, signage to scope area before and after . Database of findings destinations, etc.) project implementation PARKING OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY OUTPUTS On‐street . Understand on‐street parking . License plate surveys . Report that identifies parking utilization in order to develop documenting occupancy, recommendations for systems that meet drivers' turnover, and parking location reorganizing on‐street parking needs and create space for on streets affected by NMT NMT improvements proposals before and after project implementation Off‐street . Understand off‐street parking . License plate surveys . Report that identifies parking utilization in order to documenting occupancy and recommendations for better understand full supply of turnover of parking spaces in utilizing off-street parking parking existing off‐street parking lots before and after project implementation BUILDINGS/LANDUSE OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY OUTPUTS Building use . Identify active and non‐active . Document street front . Map of active, non‐active, street front buildings in the buildings and land uses as and empty street fronts scope area active (e.g. restaurants, cafes, shops, etc.) or non‐active (e.g. residences, offices, walls, etc.) or empty before and after project implementation Commercial . Identify economic activity as . Document value of retail sales . Database of findings activity it relates to the design and before and after project function of the street implementation Public space . Identify active and non-active . Document public space – . Map identifying existing public spaces as well as plazas, parks, playgrounds, public space potential locations for new building forecourts, . Map of recommend public public space courtyards, etc. space additions
USER OPINION OBJECTIVES METHODOLOGY OUTPUTS Public . Understand user perception . Survey users opinion on . Database of findings satisfaction and needs in the scope area quality of public space, perceived safety, and other topics of interest before and after project implementation
iii. Case Study: Setting Inclusive Streets Goals and Metrics in New York City Over the past decade, New York City has made great strides toward improving mobility and making its streets more inclusive. The city has accomplished this in part through mainstreaming inclusive street design into its various strategic planning efforts and setting metrics that include measureable targets. This case study explains.
PlaNYC
In 2007, the New York City Mayor’s Office released PlaNYC, a citywide strategic plan identifying goals and strategies to guide the city’s green growth agenda. PlaNYC identified two overarching transport
Final Report 123 30 December 2016 goals: one focused on streamlining access and reducing travel times by improving transit capacity and the second on achieving a “state of good repair” on New York City’s roads, subways, and rails.51
The plan identified several transport initiatives to achieve these goals, including one focused on improving access to existing transit, and another to promote cycling. The transit access initiative targeted street improvements around subway stations with congested sidewalks, and bus stops with unsafe conditions, such as those along city streets that lack sidewalks, or those located in unlit areas. The cycle initiative focused on completing the city’s 1,800 mile (2,900km) cycle master plan through adding protected lanes and street treatments, as well as adding rider amenities such as parking. 52
DOT Street Plans
Plans for achieving the goals identified in PlanNYC were Fig. 109 Inclusive Streets: Goals for Cycle Ridership later detailed in reports developed by the NYC Department Targets to Expand Cycle Ridership in NYC of Transportation (DOT), including Sustainable Streets, the 53 . By 2015, double number of cycle commuters department’s 2009 strategic plan. (See Fig. 110 for (from 2007 count). By 2020, triple it. example of cycle ridership goals from this plan.) In the . Install 200 miles of cycle lanes (2007-2009) same year, the city released its first Street Design Manuel, . Test new cycle lane designs, expand implementation of designs that work well which included specifications for designing and retrofitting . Install 15 miles of protected on–street bike streets to make them more inclusive.54 lanes by 2010 and 30 miles from 2011–2015. . Install 37 cycle parking shelters and 5,000 As part of these planning efforts, the DOT updated long- racks by 2011. . Conduct design competition to develop a standing goals and standard project metrics to capture its new, better–looking parking rack new inclusive streets priorities. Updated department goals . Pursue legislation to expand indoor bicycle parking and pass zoning change to require included improving safety, increasing access and mobility, bicycle parking in new construction. improving environmental health and supporting economic vitality. Street improvement projects were selected and prioritized to accomplish these goals; metrics were set and tracked for each project, and then used to understand project impact, inform decision- making, and improve future project design.
Measuring Economic Benefits of Street Improvements
During this goal and metric setting process, the DOT realized that there were no well-established methodologies for evaluating the economic impact of street design improvements, and so set out to develop their own.55 Working alongside other city agencies, DOT considered a range of data that could help to track economic impact, eventually deciding that retail sales tax filings, commercial leases and rents, and city-assessed market value of property were the strongest and most reliable sources. 56
51 New York City. PlaNYC. 2007. 52 New York City. PlaNYC. 2007. 53 NYCDOT. Sustainable Streets: Strategic Plan for the NYC DOT. 2009. 54 NYCDOT. Street Design Manuel. 2009. 55 NYCDOT. Economic Benefits of Sustainable Streets. 2012. 56 NYCDOT. Economic Benefits of Sustainable Streets. 2012.
Final Report 124 30 December 2016
Next, they identified study areas for street Fig. 110 Sample results from Street Improvements in NYC. improvement projects, as well as comparison sites. Source from Measuring the Street, NYCDOT. Study areas were selected to be representative of the range of inclusive street projects that the city was pursing. For example, one study area included rapid bus service, while another included separated bike lanes and traffic calming street treatments. Comparison sites were similar in use and traffic volume, but did not receive the upgrades.
The NYCDOT found that sites with the upgrades performed significantly better than comparison sites, suggesting that inclusive street design supports increased retail sales. The authors of the study noted that economic data is particularly important for generating business support for projects. 57 Their study helps to lay the foundation for cities to more conclusively link street design with economic development goals.
57 NYCDOT. Economic Benefits of Sustainable Streets. 2012.
Final Report 125 30 December 2016
IV. Conclusion
Across the globe, practitioners are realizing that building a city around the car does not work for the people. Car-centric development has created toxic air, dangerous streets, and agonizing commutes. Cities that have awoken to the importance of inclusive streets and have retrofitted roads to improve access for all have seen their city become more vibrant and livable. Asia’s cities have the tools to leapfrog over the mistakes of the past and become the next generation of great cities.
Final Report 126 30 December 2016
Resources
A. References Alan Jacobs, et al. The Boulevard Book: History, Evolution, Design of Multiway Boulevards, MIT Press, 2003. Alan Jacobs. Great Streets. MIT Press,1995. Appleyard, D. Livable Streets. UC Press, Berkeley, 1981. Architectural Services Department, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Universal Accessibility for External Areas, Open Spaces & Green Spaces. https://www.archsd.gov.hk/archsd/html/ua2/pdf/ASD_UA2_3.6.pdf ASVV: Recommendations for Traffic Provisions in Built-up Areas (English). Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering, The Netherlands, 1996. Baker, L. Removing Roads and Traffic Lights Speeds Urban Travel. Scientific American, 2009. Bausteine 12: Verkehrsberuhigung und Strassenraumgestaltung (German). Ministry of City Development and Transportation NRW, Dortmund, Germany, 1992. Bausteine 18: Radverkehr an Hauptverkehrsstrassen (German). Ministry of City Development and Transportation NRW, Dortmund, Germany, 1994. Bausteine 21: Hauptverkehrsstrassen fuer den Umweltverbund (German). Ministry of City Development and Transportation NRW, Dortmund, Germany, 1998. Bausteine 21: Hauptverkehrsstrassen fuer den Umweltverbund. Ministry of City Development and Transportation NRW, Germany, 1998. Beautiful Roads: A Handbook on Road Architecture (English). Road Directorate, Ministry of Transport, Denmark, 2002. Beautiful Roads: A Handbook on Road Architecture. Road Directorate, Ministry of Transport, Denmark, 2002. Bradbury, A. et al. Manual for Streets. Thomas Teleford Publishing, London, 2007. Breines, S and Dean, W. The Pedestrian Revolution: Streets without Cars. Random House, New York, 1974. Burden, D, et al. Street Design Guidelines for Healthy Neighborhoods. Center for Livable Communities, www.lgc.org, 1999. Campbell, B, et al. Review of Pedestrian Safety Research in the United States and Abroad, A. FHWA-RD-03-042, 2004. Carmen Hass-Klau. The Pedestrian and City Traffic. Belhaven Press, 1990. Clay McShane. Down the Asphalt Path: The Automobile and the American City. Columbia University Press, 1994. David Grahame Shane. Recombinant Urbanism: conceptual modeling in architecture, urban design, and city theory. Wiley, 2005. David Grahame Shane. Recombinant Urbanism: Conceptual Modeling in Architecture, Urban Design, and City Theory. Wiley, 2005. David Grahame Shane. Urban Design Since 1945: A Global Perspective. Wiley, 2011. Design and Safety of Pedestrian Facilities. ITE, 1998. Donald Appleyard. Livable Streets. University of California Press,1981. Engwicht, D. Street reclaiming: Creating Livable Streets and Vibrant Communities. New Society Publishers, 1999. Ewing, R. and Cervero, R. Travel and the Built Environment: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 2010. Ezra Hauer. "Safety in Geometric Design Standards" self-published, 1999. Fruin, J. Pedestrian: Planning & Design. Elevator World, 1987. Gehl, J. Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Wiley, New York, 1987. Gilles, D. and Turner, M. The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from US Cities. American Economic Review, 2011. Hamilton-Baillie, B. Home Zones: Reconciling People, Places and Transport. http://www.gsd.harvard.edu/professional/loeb_fellowship/sponsored_sites/home_zones/index.html, 2000. Handy S. Increasing Highway Capacity Unlikely to Relieve Traffic Congestion, 2015. Hass-Klau, C. The Pedestrian and City Traffic. Belhaven Press, London, 1990. Hiss, T. The Experience of Place. Knopf, New York, 1990. Howard, E. et all. Speed Management: A Road Safety Manual for Decision-Makers and Practitioners. Global Road Safety Partnership, 2008. Hunter, Rebecca H, Community Wayfinding: Pathways to Understanding, 2016. Source: http://www.springer.com/us/book/9783319310701, Ch 4. Jacobs, A, et al. The Boulevard Book: History, Evolution, Design of Multiway Boulevards. MIT Press Cambridge, 2003. Jacobs, A. Great Streets. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1995. Jan Gehl, Life Between Buildings: Using Public Space. Arkitektens Forlag - The Danish Architectural Press, 1971. Jane Jacobs. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House, 1961.
Final Report 127 30 December 2016
Jeffrey Brown, Erica Morris and Brian Taylor. "Paved with Good Intentions: Fiscal Politics, Freeways, and the 20th Century American City", Access, No. 3, Fall 2009. Jensen, S, et.al. Collection of Cycle Concepts (English). Road Directorate, Ministry of Transport, Denmark, 2000. John Lockerbie. "An approach to understanding Islamic urban design", http://catnaps.org/islamic/islaurb1.html, accessed 2014.06.22. John N. Ivan, Norman W. Garrick, Gilbert Hanson. "Designing Roads that Guide Drivers to Choose Safer Speeds”. Connecticut Cooperative Highway Research Program, Report JHR 09-321, 2009. Kay, J H. Asphalt Nation: How The Automobile Took Over America and How We Can Take It Back. Crown Publishing, New York, 1997. Kevin Lynch. "The Immature Arts of City Design", 1984. Reprinted in Places, Volume 1, Number 3. Kevin Lynch. The Image of the City. MIT Press,1960. Kloeden, C.N. et al. Travelling Speed and the Risk of Crash Involvement, Volume 1 and 2. The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia, 1997. Le Corbusier. The Athens Charter,1933. The Getty Conservation Institute, www.getty.edu, accessed 2012.05.25. LeCorbusier. The Athens Charter. Grossman. New York, NY, 1933. Liveable Neighbourhoods: A Western Australian Government sustainable cities initiative. Western Australian Planning Commission, Department for Planning and Infrastructure, 2007. London Cycling Design Standards. Transport for London, London, 2006. Lynch, K. The Image of the City. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1960. Main Street: When a Highway Runs Through It. Oregon DOT, 1999. Marshall W and Garrick N. "Street Network Types and Road Safety: A Study of 24 California Cities". Urban Design International, 2009. Marshall, S. Streets and Patterns. Routledge, New York, 2004. Matthew J. Trowbridge, Matthew J. Gurka, Robert E. O'Connor. "Urban Sprawl and Delayed Ambulance Arrival in the U.S.", American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 37, Issue 5, November 2009. McMillen, B, ed. Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access, Part 2. FHWA, 2001. Michael Southworth and Eran Ben-Joseph. Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities. Island Press, 2003. Mohan D. Traffic Safety and City Structure: Lessons for the Future. Salud Publica Mex 2008, vol 50, suppl 1, 2008. Mohan, D. et al. Road Safety in India: Challenges and Opportunities. The University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 2009. Montgomery C. Happy City: Transforming Our Lives Through Urban Design. Farrar, Straus & Giroux, New York, 2013. Moshe Safdie, The City After the Automobile: An Architect's Vision. Westview Press, 1997. Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines. ITE, www.ite.org, 2003. Newman, O. Defensible Space. MacMillan, New York, 1973. Oscar Newman. Defensible Space. MacMillan, 1973. Peden, M, et al. World Report on Road Traffic Injury Prevention. World Health Organization, www.who.int, 2004. Peter Norton. Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City. MIT Press, 2011. Pucher J.et al. Making Transportation Sustainable: Insights from Germany. Brookings Institution, Washington, DC, 2009. Pucher, J. et al. Urban Transport Crisis in India. Transport Policy, 2005. Pushkarev, B, Zupan, J. Urban Space for Pedestrians. MIT Press, Cambridge, 1975. Recommended Reading and Links on Car Free Development and New Street Design. GTZ, Germany, 2009. Recommended Reading and Links on Non-Motorised Transportation. GTZ, Germany, 2010. Recommended Reading and Links on Road Safety. GTZ, Germany, 2009. Reid Ewing & Robert Cervero. "Travel and the Built Environment", Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, Summer 2010. Roychowdhury, A. Footfalls: Obstacle Course to Livable Cities. Centre for Science and Environment, Delhi, 2009. Sign Up for the Bike: Design manual for a cycle-friendly infrastructure (English). Centre for Research and Contract Standardization in Civil and Traffic Engineering, The Netherlands, 1996. Southworth, M. and Ben-Joseph, E. Streets and the Shaping of Towns and Cities. Island Press, 1997. Stephen Marshall. Streets and Patterns: The Structure of Urban Geometry. Spon Press, 2004. Stover V (2007). Signal Spacing, 2007. Streetscape Guidance 2009: A guide to better London Streets. Transport for London, 2009. Svensson A, ed. ARTISTS: Arterial Streets for People. European Union, Brussels, 2004. The Globalization of Traffic Congestion: IBM 2010 Commuter Pain Survey. IBM, 2010. The TOD Standard. Institute for Transportation and Development Policy, 2014. Thomas Campanella. The Concrete Dragon. New York: Princeton Architectural Press, 2008.
Final Report 128 30 December 2016
Tiwari, G. Bicycles- an integral part of urban transport system in South Asian cities. Indian Institute of Technology Delhi, Delhi, 2000. Tolley, R, ed. The Greening of Urban Transport: Planning for Walking and Cycling in Western Cities. Wiley, New York, 1997. Urban Design 4 Health, Inc. The Hidden Health Costs of Transportation. American Public Health Association, 2010. Welle B, et al. Cities Safer by Design: Guidance and Examples to Promote Traffic Safety through Urban and Street Design. World Resources Institute, Washington DC, 2015. Whyte, W H. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. World Wildlife Fund, Washington DC, 1980. William H. Whyte. The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces. World Wildlife Fund, 1980. Zegeer, C, et.al. Pedestrian Facilities Users Guide: Providing Safety and Mobility. FHWA-RD-01-102, 2002.
Final Report 129 30 December 2016
B. Key publications
Final Report 130 30 December 2016
C. Other design guides
Global Street Design Guide National Association of City Transportation Officials (2016) http://globaldesigningcities.org/publication/global-street-design-guide/
Transit Street Design Guide National Association of City Transportation Officials (2016) http://nacto.org/publication/transit-street-design-guide/
Street Design Manual New York City Department of Transportation (2015). http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/nycdot-streetdesignmanual-interior.pdf
Streetscape Guidance Transport for London (2016) http://content.tfl.gov.uk/streetscape-guidance.pdf
Better streets, better cities A manual for street design in urban India (2011) https://www.itdp.org/better-streets-better-cities/
Better Streets Plan San Francisco Planning Department (2008) http://www.sf-planning.org/ftp/BetterStreets/proposals.htm
Urban Street Design Manual Abu Dhabi Urban Planning Council, (2009). http://www.upc.gov.ae/guidelines/urban-street-design-manual.aspx?lang=en-US
Bus Rapid Transit Planning Guide Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (2007). http://www.itdp.org/index.php/microsite/brt_ planning_guide/
Street Design Guidelines Delhi Development Authority, New Delhi (2010)
Urban Street Design Guide National Association of City Transportation Officials (2013) http://nacto.org/publication/urban-street-design-guide/
Final Report 131 30 December 2016
London Cycling Design Standards Transport for London (2014). https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/publications-and-reports/streets-toolkit
Cycle-inclusive policy development: A handbook Sustainable Urban Transport Project and Interface for Cycling Expertise (2009). http://www.gtz.de/en/themen/28407.htm
Great Streets Alan Jacobs, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press, 1995). 1995).
Life and Death of Great American Cities Jane Jacobs, (New York: Random House, 1961).
Final Report 132 30 December 2016
D. Organizations
ADB is an Asia regional development organization dedicated to reducing poverty in Asia and the Pacific through loans, grants, technical assistance, and equity investments to promote social and economic development. 6 ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City 1550, Metro Manila, Philippines www.adb.org
The Institute for Transportation and Development Policy (ITDP) works with cities worldwide to bring about transport solutions that cut greenhouse gas emissions, reduce poverty, and improve the quality of urban life. 3rd Floor, Municipal Building 348 (East) Huanshi Dong Lu Guangzhou 510060, China 9 E 19th St, 7th floor New York, NY 10003, USA www.itdp.org
Final Report 133 30 December 2016
Final Report 134 30 December 2016