Philadelphia2035: Planning and Zoning for a Healthier City

Philadelphia2035: Planning And Zoning for a Healthier City

The City’s new Comprehensive Plan and its role in improving public health

December 2010 Page 2 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Acknowledgements This report is made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services as part of the Philadelphia Department of Public Health’s Get Healthy Philly initiative. On behalf of the entire Get Healthy Philly team, we would like to express our sincere gratitude to all of the partners in and out of city government that work alongside us to help Philadelphia become an increasingly healthy, active, and smoke-free city every day.

None of the work described within this document would be possible without the tremendous leadership of those in the Philadelphia Department of Public Health who manage and coordinate the nutrition and physical activity components of Get Healthy Philly: Girid- har Mallya, Sara Solomon, and Nan Feyler. Thanks also to Health Commissioner Don Schwarz for recognizing the vital importance of planning and zoning in the context of public health. Many thanks are also due to Get Healthy Philly team members Lisa Colby, Jonathan Sinker, Aaron Ritz and Amanda Wagner for their analysis, insight, and support.

We are grateful to the staff of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) for their willingness to integrate public health considerations into the already daunting task of updating the city’s Comprehensive Plan. Many people contribute to the Philadel- phia2035 process, and we would like to acknowledge several of them for their contributions to the development of this report: Alan Greenberger, Gary Jastrzab, Alan Urek, Rick Redding, Danielle Dileo Kim, Jennifer Barr, John Haak, Mark Wheeler, Jeannette Brugger. We owe a special thank you to Donna Carney, Citizens Planning Institute coordinator, for her thoughtful input and for launching what will assuredly become a tremendous forum to engage the public around these issues.

We thank Eva Gladstein and Natalie Shieh of the Zoning Code Commission for their enthusiastic incorporation of health-promoting content in the new code. Their tireless commitment to this important reform makes building a healthier city that much easier.

Many thanks to Debby Schaaf of the City Planning Commission and Charles Carmalt of the Mayor’s Office of Transportation and Utili- ties, whose work on pedestrian and bicycle issues provide an invaluable foundation for many of the activities discussed in this report.

We acknowledge those in other departments that have already demonstrated a willingness to work with the Planning Commission to create healthier built environments and raise awareness around the health impacts of land use decisions: Rob Armstrong, Sarah Low, Maureen Maier, and Patrick Morgan at Parks and Recreation; Andrew Frishkoff and Emily Giordano in Commerce; Sarah Wu in the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability; Patricia Ellis and Ariel Ben-Amos in the Mayor’s Office of Transportation and Utilities; and Lisa Beyer at the Water Department. We are optimistic that this list will only continue to grow as awareness of these issues increases.

Many partner organizations and individuals deserve acknowledgement for the work they already do to make Philadelphia a healthier place and for their interest in collaborating with the Department of Public Health and the City Planning Commission as this partnership grows: Alex Doty, Diana Owens, and Sarah Clark Stuart at the Bicycle Coalition of Greater Philadelphia; Nicky Uy and Katy Wich at The Food Trust; Spencer Finch, Jeffrey Knowles, Khiet Luong and Patrick Starr at the Pennsylvania Environmental Council; Kate Clark and Allen Glicksman at the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging; Andrew Goodman and Harris Steinberg at Penn Praxis; and Brian James Kirk at PlanPhilly. We look forward to growing these relationships and adding to this list in the coming months and years.

We owe a special thanks to Amy Hillier at the University of Pennsylvania, and to Amy Auchincloss and Yvonne Michael at Drexel Uni- versity for their input on the Health Impact Assessment tools that we continue to refine. We are fortunate to have these and so many others in the research and academic communities engaged and contributing to our understanding of the relationships between the built environment and human health.

Finally, we would like to extend an enormous thank you to the public health and planning practitioners who provided their expertise, insight, and experience in the early days of this program. They helped define the scope of our efforts and will undoubtedly continue to be resources as we move forward. We are particularly grateful to Rajiv Bhatia, Cyndy Comerford Scully, Megan Gaydos, Jennifer McLaughlin, Megan Wier, June Weintraub, and everyone at the San Francisco Department of Public Health’s Program on Health, Equity, and Sustainability, as well as to Samina Raja at SUNY Buffalo and Heather Wooten at Public Health Law & Policy. We hope that our work in Philadelphia will provide opportunities for future collaborations.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 3 Table of Contents

Introduction

I Context City Planning & Public Health 9 Philadelphia’s Current Public Health Challenges 10

Philadelphia2035 11

Get Healthy Philly 12

II Addressing Health in the Citywide Plan and New Zoning Code

Philadelphia2035: Health-Supportive Content 15 Neighborhood Centers 16 Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) 18 New & Improved Transit Services 20 Healthy Food Access 22 Open Space Access 24 Active Transportation Infrastructure 26

The New Zoning Code: Health-Supportive Content 28 Mixed-Use Districts Transit-Oriented Development Standards Food Access Age-friendly Neighborhoods Sidewalk Standards Open Space Provision Parking Maximums Bicycle Parking

Page 4 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Table of Contents

III Looking Ahead: District Plans and Health Impact Assessment

District Planning & Health Impact Assessment 31

The Healthy Planning Toolbox 32

Potential HIA Topics in District Plans 34

The HIA Task Force 36

Community Engagement Around Public Health 37

Next Steps 39

References 41

Appendix: The Healthy Planning Toolbox

PHILATool (Planning & Health Indicator List & Assessment Tool) 46

BEAT (Bicycling Environmental Audit Tool) 50

WAT (Walkability Assessment Tool) 52

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 5 Page 6 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Introduction

Philadelphia’s physical form affects the health of its residents and communities. A robust and growing body of scien- tific literature continues to identify associations between thebuilt environment – streets, buildings, parks, and other human-made components of cities and places – and a variety of health determinants and outcomes, including physical activity, nutrition, obesity, and chronic diseases such as diabetes and hypertension.1

This report explains the steps Philadelphia is taking to become a healthier, active, and more livable city through its new Comprehensive Plan, Philadelphia2035, and the subsequent zoning map revisions that the plan will guide. Our new integrated planning and zoning process presents enormous opportunity to educate residents on the health impacts of different land use policies, and to promote the consideration of health in planning, zoning, and development decision-making.

Recognizing the once-in-a-generation chance that Philadelphia2035 offers to plan healthier environments and encourage active living, the Philadelphia Department of Public Health (PDPH) has partnered with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) as part of Get Healthy Philly, a 2-year, $25 million dollar initiative made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services. Planning and zoning address two of Get Healthy Philly’s themes: Making healthy foods more accessible and affordable for Philadelphians; and Promoting physical activity in daily living.

The report’s three sections answer key questions about the integration of health into planning policy and practice:

I Context

• What is the connection between city planning and public health? • What public health challenges make this relevant in Philadelphia today? • What current policy initiatives enable this work?

II Addressing Health in the Citywide Plan and New Zoning Code

• How does our new Citywide Plan promote healthier people and communities? • How does our proposed Zoning Code promote a healthier built environment?

III Looking Ahead: District Plans & Health Impact Assessment

• What is Health Impact Assessment? • How do we apply HIA to District Plans? • What tools can we use to assess the built environment’s effects on health? • How can HIA influence plan recommendations and inform decision-making? • Who is involved and how can I get involved?

PCPC and PDPH hope that these pages raise additional questions and spark a lively dialogue about the ways in which Philadelphia can address and improve the health of its citizens through physical planning.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 7 Page 8 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Context

City Planning and Public Health

The city planning profession in the United States developed largely in response to public health concerns of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, when heavily industrialized and rapidly growing cities were dealing with the consequences of unchecked population increases: unsanitary living conditions, overcrowded buildings, and utility systems that facilitated the spread of contagious disease. Planners helped bring about reforms in the areas of housing, urban design, and environmental protection, allowing cities to become more livable, more sanitary, and more attractive.2,3 The landmark 1926 Supreme Court case Euclid v. Ambler Realty cited public health in its defense of zoning as a legal tool for municipalities to effectively separate noxious uses from residential areas.4

A century later, planners remain committed to improving public health and well-being, but the context has changed fundamentally. Chronic disease has replaced infectious disease as the principal public health threat facing the United States.5 This shift requires public health professionals, planners, and others to understand the complex relationships that exist between health outcomes and the built environment. The focus is no longer solely on understanding environmental exposures; the health crises at hand necessitate Above: Starting in 1917, a dense urban landscape gave way to the construction of the serious investigation of how built environments influence behavior and Ben Franklin Parkway, an effort to connect lifestyle choices, and the subsequent implementation of health-supportive Philadelphia’s clogged and industrial core to land use policies and infrastructure. the open spaces of Fairmount Park. (Source: phillyhistory.org) Rising rates of chronic disease and obesity nationwide have drawn local, state, and federal-level attention and funding to the linkages between com- Below: Factories and warehouses were community design, land use decision-making, transportation patterns and the mon features in rowhouse neighborhoods at impacts these physical and environmental determinants have on public the turn of the 20th century. health. A well-established and growing body of research identifies associa- (Source: Pennsylvania State Archives) tions between the built environment and different aspects of physical fitness, mental health, cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, fatal and non-fatal injuries, and nutrition.6,7,8 These significant relationships point to evidence- based strategies that Philadelphia can apply to build healthier neighborhoods in the coming years.

PCPC and PDPH acknowledge and understand that land use and the activities of planning and zoning that direct it represent just one of many policy areas affecting health outcomes in Philadelphia. The inherently complex relationships that exist between the physical form of the city and social determinants such as crime, educational attainment, and poverty make it all the more essential to consider the health impacts of physical planning policies and projects on local populations.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 9

Adult Obesity (2008) PHMC Small Area Estimates Philadelphia’s Current Public Health Challenges

In 2010, Philadelphia faces significant public health challenges that signal a need for upstream interventions in the physical environment. Of particular relevance to city planning and zoning are high rates of chronic disease, overweight, and obesity. Philadelphia County has the highest prevalance of adult obesity (35.1%), diabetes (11.9%), and hypertension (33.4%), and the second highest prevalence of heart disease (4.5%) among counties containing the 10 largest U.S. cities (Philadelphia County and the City of Philadelphia are coter- minous).9 2008 data show that nearly two-thirds of adults and half of children

Philadelphia Park System in Philadelphia were overweight or obese based on self or parental report of 10 Adult Obesity 2008 Body Mass Index (BMI). These obesity numbers compare unfavorably even 31.42% - 59.9% to other major cities with large populations living in poverty, including Balti- 59.91% - 68.65% 68.66% - 83.31% more and Washington, D.C. Research links obesity to increased likelihood of No Data other negative health outcomes including heart disease, cancer, heart attack, type II diabetes, and depression.11,12 Chronic respiratory conditions are also 13 Lower-income areas in West and North Philadelphia prevalent: 22.7% of children claim to suffer from asthma. have the highest proportion of overweight and obese residents, whereas areas with higher average median incomes, such as Center City and the North- Low income and minority populations are disproportionately likely to suffer west, report the lowest rates of obese persons. from these and other negative health outcomes,14,15 and this statistical likelihood manifests in examples across the city: In primarily Latino areas of Ken- sington and Richmond, diabetes diagnoses exceed the citywide average by Healthy Food Access almost 40%. In the predominantly African-American neighborhoods of Olney (December 2010 DRAFT) and Oak Lane, Household Health Survey respondents reported overweight  and obesity rates for children 6-12-years-of-age at nearly 70%.16 DRAFT 11/9/10

T L E W  V O E O S D  O H The majority of Philadelphians face significant environmental hurdles that A O V R E N N  O T E  L T S U B contribute to unhealthful behaviors. Several of these hurdles, including inad- G RA G S NT E T C R E H M N E TO L A N T  N EN T H O A W M  N T L equate opportunities for physical activity and poor access to reliable sources E V  E S O   O  R    R I D  of healthy foods, are well-documented risk factors for obesity and related D G A  E O  R

E AR W negative health outcomes. Both are affected by decisions in the realms of LA DE

RI DG E  planning, development, infrastructure, and public facilities.

R G I D LEHIGH E Y G R IT  E M D C S

A A  C

N  H O T U R  O  B Y L W K N I  L L

 VINE 100 - 309 (Good Access) Open space and physical activity: More than half of Philadelphians report VINE STREET STREET MARKET  17 ORE  BALTIM 1 - 99 (Limited Access)  SOUTH that they never use Parks and Recreation facilities. One quarter of children

D D A N O A L R D B S 0 (No Access) O O C W H U Y L do not participate in more than 30 minutes of physical activity on a weekly K  I L D L A

R No Data B 18 S CHUY LKILL E AR basis, and nearly half of adults report exercising less than 3 times per week. W  LA DE   Auto-oriented design of shopping centers, employment centers, and entire  Food access scores  take into account linear neighborhoods has discouraged walking and other active forms of transport, walking distances to food sources including supermarkets and making it more difficult for people in certain communities to integrate physi-   farmers’ markets, produce carts and cal activity into daily routines and commutes. Despite an extensive network   enrolled healthy corner stores, each   of sidewalks, trails, and bicycle infrastructure, nearly 60% of Philadelphians  weighted according to the variety of 19 foods offered, the hours they are avail- drive to work. In some cases, employment opportunities have agglomerated able, and other factors. Areas with the in places inaccessible by non-automotive means; in others, infrastructure best access appear in green. in poor condition, unreliable transit service, or perceived and real issues of safety prevent residents from making the switch to active transportation.

Page 10 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Food Access & Nutrition:Residents in low-income Philadelphia neighborhoods are half as likely to have access to quality grocery stores as residents of high-income neighborhoods.20 Though progress has been made on this front since the launch of the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative in 2004, the grocery gap remains a real problem in many areas of the city.21 Mean- while, corner stores remain a ubiquitous part of Philadelphia’s ‘foodscape’, serving as the sole source of convenient food stuffs in many neighborhoods. A recent study revealed that Philadelphia school children buy, on average, 360 nutrient-poor calories from corner stores for the cost of little more than $1 per visit.22 Though there is opportunity to improve the offerings at many corner stores (see Get Healthy Philly, page 12), there is clear demand for better access to healthy food sources: local data suggest that 70% of Philadel- phia residents would eat more fruits and vegetables provided that they were fresh, affordable, and located in their neighborhood.23 Farmers’ markets have proliferated in recent years, but many are geographically inaccessible to most low-income residents.

Philadelphia2035: A Rare Opportunity to Integrate Public Health & Planning

Philadelphia2035 is a major policy moment for the city. The first update of the city’s Comprehensive Plan in 50 years, Philadelphia2035 presents a 25-year vision for the city’s future and a roadmap of how to get there. The Comprehensive Plan consists of a Citywide Plan and 18 District Plans which translate citywide goals into detailed land use recommendations. The City- wide Plan, presented in draft form to the Planning Commission on Feburary 15, 2011, synthesizes community input and the priorities of various city agencies to produce a series of measurable objectives and actionable strategies that guide stakeholders towards achieving larger goals in areas such as open space, transportation, and economic development. The Plan reaffirms the role that PCPC plays in guiding development and providing strategic recommendations on how to invest in facilities and infrastructure. An Integrated and Participatory Plan- ning & Zoning Process: The drafting of the Citywide Plan has moved hand in hand with the overhaul of the city’s Zoning Code, which was also decades-overdue for an update. The policies of the Citywide Comprehen- These two processes are not parallel; they are fully integrated and iterative: sive Plan inform site-specific implemen- During the district planning phase of Philadelphia2035, PCPC will apply the tation strategies for District Plans (top). new code to every part of the city, producing revised zoning maps for each of District plans lead to zoning remappings the 18 districts over a 5-year period. that apply the new Zoning Code to parcels across the city (bottom). Throughout, a new Citizens Planning Institute (CPI) As a citywide blueprint for the built environment, Philadelphia2035 shapes provides a forum for educating the public policies, development, and infrastructure that have profound impacts on about planning issues and increases the environmental determinants of health. The incorporation of health-promot- capacity for civic participation (middle). ing content into the Citywide Plan is an exciting first step in a larger effort to The CPI will become an integral part of consider the health impacts of proposed plans, policies, and projects in public the overall community engagement strat- sector decision-making. egy for District Plans.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 11 Get Healthy Philly

Recognizing the once-in-a-generation opportunity Philadelphia2035 presents to plan healthier environments and encourage active living, the Philadelphia Department of Public Health has engaged the City Planning Commission as a partner in Get Healthy Philly, a 2-year, $25 million dollar initiative made possible by funding from the Department of Health and Human Services. Through Get Healthy Philly, PDPH and its partners will enact a series of interrelated policy and systems reforms that improve food and physical activity environments in communities as well as schools, after school settings, and worksites. Many Get Healthy Philly projects, including the opening of 10 new farmers’ markets in low-income neighborhoods, will be fully operational by 2012. The planning and zoning aspects of the initiative are ‘upstream’ interventions that create a framework for healthier land use practices moving forward.

The Healthy Communities Coordinator (HCC), funded through Get Healthy Philly, works with PCPC and PDPH to coordinate and develop the activities, policies, and programs around public health and city planning summarized Above: By 2012, 10 additional farmers’ mar- in this report. To date, the Coordinator’s work has focused on the following kets, like this one in Norris Square, will open in objectives: low-income areas thanks to funding through Get Healthy Philly. Promote explicit consideration of the human health impacts of the Below: A related Get Healthy Philly program, recommendations of Philadelphia2035; Philly Food Bucks, provides a $2 coupon to SNAP and Food Stamp users for every $5 spent The HCC worked as part of the Citywide Plan team, integrating public health on healthy foods at farmers’ markets operated policy language and identifying ways that Philadelphia2035 objectives could by The Food Trust. support improved health outcomes. Pages 15 - 27 present a summary of the resulting content.

Build Health Impact Assessment tools that provide city employees and residents with increased capacity to assess health conditions;

The HCC created and continues to develop content for a Healthy Planning Toolbox, a set of spatial analysis tools designed to assist planners in identifying opportunities to improve health. During District Plans, planners will use a comprehensive Planning & Health Indicator List & Assessment Tool (also known as PHILATool) to collect and analyze data on built environment factors affecting health, and can then identify priority issues and develop site-specific recommendations. Additional tools, including walkability and bicycling environment audit tools, will assess particular health impacts such as pedestrian and bicycle safety. Page 33 describes the initial set of tools.

Page 12 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Apply Health Impact Assessment methods in the planning and development process;

The tools in the Healthy Planning Toolbox enable city employees in multiple agencies to identify and analyze connections between physical development, land use and infrastructure decisions, and health. The HCC will train City employees to use the tools and will apply them to generate new data for future Health Impact Assessments. Initially, PDPH and PCPC plan to complete one HIA in conjunction with each District Plan, using community input to identify priority issues that might benefit from the HIA process. The resulting HIA report would support the plan’s recommendations and provide decision-makers with information on the health impacts that a particular zoning map revision or public investment might have on the local population. As the practice of HIA becomes more standardized in planning, PCPC and PDPH envision applying it to project review when appropriate. Pages 31 - 35 describe the District Plan and HIA processes in more detail and provide examples of potential topics.

Promote inter-agency collaboration within city government around projects and policies with potential public health impacts.

To assist PCPC throughout the District Planning process and build capacity in city government to assess and address health impacts, the HCC leads a Health Impact Assessment Task Force made up of representatives from more than half a dozen agencies. The Task Force will receive HIA training and will meet periodically throughout each District Plan to craft health-supportive recommendations. Page 36 describes the Task Force.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 13 Page 14 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Addressing Health in the Citywide

Plan and New Zoning Code

The Citywide Plan: In this phase of the process, PDPH and PCPC staff assessed public health conditions citywide and undertook a literature review of relationships between the city’s most prevalent negative health outcomes and the built environment. This process informed policy language and specific strategies that now appear within Philadelphia2035 and the new Zoning Code.

As a result of this work, the citywide Comprehensive Plan provides an evidence-based policy framework for creating healthier communities. Thanks to PDPH’s participation in Philadelphia2035, it is not a necessary goal of this report to al- ter or influence the content of the citywide Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code. Rather, it is to clearly articulate how this partnership helped shape a health-conscious vision for the next 25 years in Philadelphia by contributing to the content and structure of these documents as they came into being.

Philadelphia2035 sets forth policies for creating, improving, and expanding the following health-supportive land use and infrastructure concepts:

Neighborhood Centers: The Plan promotes the growth and preservation of neighborhood centers characterized by compact development clustered around public facilities and commercial corridors.

Transit-Oriented Development (TOD): Philadelphia2035 lays out a contextual framework for directing higher intensity growth to select station areas, outside of the existing metropolitan center of Center City and University City, to create additional nodes of highly walkable mixed-use development.

Improved & Expanded Transit Services: Rapid transit extensions to Northeast Philadelphia, the Navy Yard, the Delaware River waterfront, and Fairmount Park combine with service enhancements on existing rail lines to lay the framework necessary for a less auto-oriented, more pedestrian-friendly Philadelphia.

Healthy Food Access: Philadelphia2035 expands on Greenworks Philadelphia, the City’s sustainability plan, to comprehensively address the physical aspects of food systems planning, identifying ways to site new farmers’ markets, grocery stores, urban farms, and community gardens in neighborhood centers.

Open Space Access: Philadelphia2035 calls for the provision of recreation centers and neighborhood parks within a 10 minute walk of all residents. The Plan also recommends an interconnected citywide trail system and improved and expanded waterfront access. These longer term goals build on the Green2015 initiative, an action plan to add 500 acres of publicly accessible green space to the areas that need it most by 2015.

Active Transportation Infrastructure:Expanded bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure will encourage non-motorized commuting and provide increased opportunities for physical activity.

Pages 16 - 27 discuss these concepts in further detail, identifying the evidence-based public health arguments for their implementation and the discreet actions city agencies will take to achieve them.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 15 Neighborhood Centers

Philadelphia2035 Objectives on this topic:

1.1.1 Strengthen neighborhood centers by clustering community-serving capital facilities 1.1.2 Strengthen neighborhood centers by developing viable commercial corridors 1.2.3 Promote new housing developments to strengthen existing neighborhood assets

What is a neighborhood center?

Philadelphia2035 identifies three types of neighborhood centers that form the core of many of the city’s communities today: community-serving capital facilities such as libraries; commercial corridors; and transit stations (transit- based centers are addressed under the topic of Transit-Oriented Develop- ment on page 18). Whether a neighborhood center is service-, retail-, or transit-based (or most ideally, some combination thereof), these places serve as loci for new development and are the facilities that residents need easy access to on a routine basis. A successful neighborhood center builds walking into people’s daily routines, raises potential for social interaction, increases community surveillance of streets and public spaces, and improves quality of life by connecting shops, services, and people to one another.

What is the relationship between neighborhood centers and public health?

Living in a mixed-use community with a variety of shops and services is a robust negative predictor of obesity in urban areas.24, 25 Clustering public services and retail within close proximity to one another and to residential areas decreases reliance on automobiles, which reduces emissions and encourages walking as part of daily routines. Building walking into daily routines and commuting patterns makes it easier to achieve recommended levels of physical activity.26, 27 Decreased usage of automobiles and lower volumes of auto traffic are correlated with fewer instances of auto-pedestrian accidents resulting in injuries and/or fatalities.28 Emissions from motor vehicles are a primary source of fine particulate air matter (PM2.5) in residential and commercial areas. Studies show strong association between negative cardiovascular outcomes and increased exposure to PM2.5. 29 Lowering vehicle miles traveled A model neighborhood center: The Fishtown (VMT) and improving air quality can have a positive impact on rates of respi- Library sits adjacent to a public pool and el- ratory conditions, as traffic density is strongly correlated with reduced lung ementary school. A rec center with a roller rink 30 and playground is directly across Montgomery function. Walkable communities increase opportunity for social interaction Street. Girard Avenue’s commercial core and a and increase levels of community surveillance of public places. Maximizing trolley route are steps away. walkability and minimizing distances between services helps make communities more age-friendly, an important consideration in a city where 17% of the population will be 65 or older by 2025.31

Page 16 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Addressing Health in the Citywide Plan

What is an example of this concept?

Relatively few clusters of public facilities exist in Philadelphia’s neighborhoods today. Philadelphia2035 identifies 9 existing public facilities clusters, including Fishtown, where a recreation center, pool, branch library, and elementary school all exist within one block of another, providing nearby residents with multiple services in one central location. This service cluster is located just off of Girard Avenue, a commercial street served by SEPTA’s Route 15 Trolley. This emerging neighborhood center contains all of the ingredients for a walkable, transit-oriented community with easily accessible commercial and city services.

What can the City do to strengthen neighborhood centers?

Philadelphia2035 supports the growth of areas like the Fishtown neighborhood center described above by discouraging the relocation of public facilities away from existing or emerging clusters and advocating for infill commercial and residential development along viable and growing corridors.

Co-locate and consolidate capital facilities. In some cases it may be possible to replace outdated facilities with improved facilities in more accessible locations. In other instances, the city can consolidate multiple smaller facilities such as recreation centers into multi-use community complexes. Above: Liberties Walk in Northern Liberties Align investment in commercial corridors with other programs. Housing created a new and completely pedestrian- agencies can rehabilitate properties in close proximity to commercial cor- friendly commercial corridor through the ridors and construct new housing developments within walking distance of formerly industrial neighborhood. service and retail centers. When large assemblages are not possible, the city Below: Zoning can reinforce viable commercial can take an infill approach, filling in so-called ‘missing teeth’ in otherwise corridors by permitting greater residential stable neighborhoods and providing added residential density to support density within walking distance and permitting business owners. the kinds of businesses neighborhood residents need on a daily basis.

Use zoning to focus development around neighborhood centers. A mix of residential and commercial uses at density levels appropriate to the local neighborhood fabric will be encouraged near neighborhood centers to make commercial businesses more viable and to support residents’ ability to access these facilities without a car. In places where the city owns land, PCPC can rezone to allow appropriate uses for that center, be it new open space, new commercial space for a growing corridor, new residential units, or some combination thereof.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 17 Transit-Oriented Development

Philadelphia2035 Objectives on this topic: 1.1.3 Strengthen neighborhood centers by promoting transit-oriented development around identified stations 4.3.2 Control automobile congestion through traffic management and planning

What is Transit-Oriented Development (TOD)?

TOD is the clustering of development around existing or planned transit services to encourage transit ridership and decrease reliance on automobiles. TOD serves to maximize the efficiency of public transportation systems while creating mixed-use areas that encourage walking and other forms of active transportation. This land use strategy directs density to places where infrastructure can support it and where the perceived negative aspects of higher density, such as traffic and congestion, can be managed thanks to the multi- modal service at the TOD node.

What is the relationship between TOD and public health?

Higher density around transit stations decreases reliance on automobiles, lowering fossil fuel emissions and increasing rates of active transportation as transit users can walk or bike to and from stations to complete their trips.32,33 This in turn reduces energy consumption and increases levels of physical activity. Research shows a 12.2% reduction in the chances of being obese in 34,35 TOD at Temple University: A former ware- places with higher densities, a mix of uses, and better street connectivity. house at the Temple Regional Rail station By encouraging use of public transit for commuting and longer trips and now provides student housing (above); a new providing commercial services within walkable proximity to stations, TOD can mixed-use complex featuring a 24-story dormi- reduce congestion and traffic volumes, which are associated with asthma and tory rises above the Cecil B. Moore subway other adverse respiratory outcomes.36 station (below). Concentrating housing at train stations will limit the need for students to bring cars to campus. What is an example of this concept?

Much of Philadelphia has the ‘bones’ for TOD given its extensive public transportation infrastructure. Center City is essentially one large TOD area, with high levels of transit service and good supporting pedestrian infrastructure connecting stations to residential and commercial areas. Neighborhoods like Germantown, Northern Liberties, and parts of South Philadelphia are examples of places that have TOD characteristics, meaning that most residents live within walking distance of transit services that connect them to other major destinations for jobs and services. Auto-oriented, suburban-style development has encroached upon these otherwise pedestrian-friendly environ-

Page 18 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Above: The Cira Center, seen through the ceil- ments throughout much of the last 50 years, leaving great opportunity for an ing of the 30th Street Regional Rail Station, is a improved public realm and more efficient use of land around transit. prime example of office TOD.

What can the City do to support TOD?

Zoning is the primary tool to promote TOD within designated station areas. PCPC staff created a set of contextual TOD standards for the new Zoning Code Below: Penn followed TOD design principles that establish different tiers of TOD based on station and line capacity, local when it developed its bookstore and hotel land use patterns, inter-modality, and other factors. Philadelphia2035 and the complex: the project offers wide sidewalks, a Zoning Code identify an initial set of stations most appropriate for a variety pedestrian-friendly plaza with seating and bike of design and development standards. The new code reduces or eliminates parking near a transit station entrance, and no parking requirements near stations, requires the provision of a quality pedes- off-street parking for cars. trian and bicycle environment, and provides height bonuses within a certain distance of identified stations. Additionally, specified areas around Market East, Suburban, and 30th Street Regional Rail stations allow significant increases in Floor Area Ratio (FAR), a measure of the density of a development project. In these cases, zoning acts as an incentive for encouraging growth in particular TOD areas capable of absorbing new residents and businesses. Other nodes include the Sports Complex area of South Philadelphia, the Gir- ard Avenue and 46th Street Market-Frankford Line stations, and North Broad Street between Center City and Temple University.

The city can also limit parking in high density areas to encourage use of other modes. Increasing parking supply creates an incentive to choose driving even when other options exist. In other words, a greater supply of off-street parking worsens congestion. Parking structures also impact the pedestrian environment by cutting across sidewalks. The new zoning code recognizes these impacts on air quality and pedestrian safety.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 19 Improved & Expanded Transit Services Philadelphia2035 Objectives on this topic: 4.1.1 Invest in existing infrastructure to improve service and attract riders 4.1.2 Extend transit network to serve new markets

What is the relationship between transit and health?

Research has found that proximity to public transit helps to determine travel choice.37 Risk of injury and death increase when people travel extensively in motor vehicles (both in terms of total trip distance and number of trips).38,39 Air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions increase with vehicle miles traveled. 40 Poor air quality has been linked to both respiratory and cardiovascular conditions ranging from asthma to heart disease. Research also suggests that obesity rates tend to be inversely related to use of alternative modes (walking, cycling and public transit). A 2007 study found that New York City residents’ Body Mass Index (BMI) ratings tend to decline significantly with greater subway and bus stop density, higher population density, and more mixed land use in their neighborhood.41 Improving reliability, frequency, and comfort of the region’s public transportation systems makes non-automotive commuting options more attractive for a greater proportion of Philadelphians. Expansion of the system allows the city to implement more pedestrian-friendly land use patterns in areas where walking is currently an unviable alternative. Above: An illustration of a new rapid transit line along Roosevelt Boulevard with station Major Transit Projects Promoted in Philadelphia2035 locations.

Below: A rendering of transit serving new “CityRail”: This proposal is a creative reuse of existing infrastructure wherein development along the Delaware River Wa- regional rail operations are adjusted to provide service frequency similar to terfront. This line will make key connections to that of subway systems, improving access to suburban job centers and Center existing subway and trolley routes. City. This long-term transformation of the system would permit higher- frequency service to operate out to certain key transfer and park-and-ride stations, while express service would continue to serve suburban destinations farther from the core. The result: faster trips for those farther away, and more capacity in the inner ring suburbs and city neighborhoods. CityRail could shift mode share and reduce the need for auto use and ownership in cetain areas. Increased ridership could help offset the cost of re-opening stations along existing lines in neighborhoods that currently lack access to rapid transit. In the long-term, these system improvements can positively impact air quality, travel times, vehicular collisions, and the obesity rate. This project has only been explored conceptually, but many ongoing improvements, including high-level station platforms to speed boarding times and new fare collection systems, support eventual implementation of this concept.

Page 20 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Addressing Health in the Citywide Plan

Roosevelt Boulevard Rapid Transit: True rapid transit service from Center City to the Northeast would provide a viable alternative to driving for thousands Roosevelt Blvd. of Philadelphians. Coordinated with appropriate changes in land use around Rapid Transit planned stations, the project would help reduce congestion, accidents, injuries, and fatalities. It would also improve walkability, air quality, access to services, and affordability (from lowered need for auto ownership). A 2003 feasibility study examined a number of alternatives for this project. The City is seeking funds to move the project forward. Centennial Broad Street Subway Extension to Navy Yard: The Navy Yard is a growing em- District Transit ployment center for white, blue, and green collar jobs alike. In 2010, almost Waterfront ! ! 10,000 people arrive at the Yard daily, virtually all of them in private automo- Light Rail biles for lack of other options. A long-planned 1.5 mile extension of the Broad Newark, NJ Street Line from Pattison to two new stations in the Navy Yard connects this Doylestown Navy Yard important metropolitan subcenter into the rapid transit network, increasing Delaware Valley College Extension West Trenton Allentown New Britain regional access by non-automotive means, speeding travel times, and reduc- Chalfont Bethlahem Link Belt Yardley ing congestion along nearby corridors. A 2009 study confirmed the feasibility Colmar Above:Fortuna A snapshotWarminster of the majorWoodbourne transit system of constructing a 1.5 mile extension at a cost of approximately $370 million Langhorne Pottsville Lansdaleextensions detailed in Philadelphia2035.Neshemany Falls Pennbrook (2008 dollars). Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC) con- Trevose Hatboro North Wales Somerton Reading Gwynedd Valley Willow Grove tinues to explore ways to move this project to the next phase. Below: what if the regional rail Forestsystem Hills be- Penllyn Crestmont Philmont Trenton Ambler Lancaster haved more like a Roslynsubway system?Bethayres This image Fort Washington Meadowbrook modifiesOreland SEPTA’s Ardsleysystem map to illustrate the Delaware Waterfront Light Rail: This new addition to the rail transit network North Hills Rydal CityRail concept in whichNoble neighborhood sta- would provide a one-seat rideThorndale from Center City to numerous points along Glenside Norristown Downingtown Chestnut tions areJenkintown-Wyncote reopened and frequency increases. Elkins Park the Delaware River waterfront,Whitford including existing and plannedNorristown parks, openHill East Exton Main St Norristown Trans. Ctr. Gravers spaces, and trails. ConnectionsMalvern to the Market-Frankford Line, Route 15 Trol- Chestnut Wyndmoor Fern Rock Melrose Park Fox Chase Hill West Mt. Airy Trans. Ctr. ley, and PATCO bring all of this within Paolireach of a much larger proportion of Sedgwick Wycoming Cornwalla Conshohocken Highland Stenton Daylesford Wycoming Frankford Philadelphia’s population. Alignments for this project are currently beingSt. Martins Washington Lane Spring Mill Olney Berwyn Bridgeport Allen Lane Lawndale Trans. Ctr. Allegheny Germantown T.C. Devon DeKalb St Miquon studied to determine costs and phasing. Carpenter Wister Wycoming Margaret-Orthodox Stratford Hughes Park Allegheny Upsal Logan Wayne Gulph Mills Church Ivy Ridge Tulpehocken Allegheny St. Davids Matsonford Erie-Torresdale Chelten Ave Wycoming County Line Manayunk Wayne Jct Allegheny Transit Connection to Centennial District: Rapid transit service between Queen Lane Hunting Park Wissahickon N. Phila (CHW) Radnor Erie Tioga East Falls Allegheny Villanova Center City and the growing Centennial District in West Fairmount Park would Allegheny Rosemont Allegheney Radnor North Philadelphia Somerset Villanova Cynwyd provide a viable non-automotive commute optionBryn Mawr for residents in areas cur- Huntington Stadium (Ithan Ave) North Broad Haverford Temple U York-Dauphin Garret Hill Ardmore Susquehanna-Daupin rently underserved, including Parkside and Brewerytown. The new line will Cecil B. Moore Berks Roberts Rd Wynnewood Bala Brynmawr Wynnefield Ave permit the thousands of potential Centennial DistrictNarberth visitors to travel to the Girard Girard Haverford Zoo Fairmount Merion China- Ardmore Ave 40th Fairmount area without a car, easing congestion and therefore loweringOverbrook emissions and town Spring- Wynnewood Rd Spring Garden Garden Beechwood-Brookline Race - Vine 30th Street City Hall, Camden accident rates in the area. The service wouldPenfield permit more users to access the Market East Station Suburban Station Station 8th Walter Rand Trans. Ctr. Township Line Rd Ferry Ave., Camden park’s trails, courts, fields and other physicalParkview activity spaces, as well as the Collingswood 63rd 60th 56th 53rd 46th 40th 34th 15th 13th 69th Street Terminal Westmont growing number of cultural and educational institutions. The Centennial Dis- Haddonfield Fairfield Ave 11th 8th 5th 2nd Woodcrest Walnut St Avon Rd 33rd Ashland 36th 30th 22nd 19th trict master plan recommended this project for implementation. A possible City Hall Hilltop Rd 37th Beverly Rd 40th Lindenwold Congress Ave Walnut - Locust linkage with the Delaware Waterfront line mayLansdowne increase Ave the feasibility of this University City Drexel Hill Jct. Drexel Park 15th-16th Irvington Rd NJ Transit to : project and its impacts on regionalHuey mobility. Ave 12th-13th 9th-10th Atlantic City School Lane Garrettford Lombard - South Drexel Manor 49th St Aronimink Ellsworth - Federal Anderson Ave Marshall Rd Angora Drexelbrook Creek Rd Tasker - Morris Fernwood-Yeadon Baltimore Ave Drexeline Snyder Scenic Rd Penn St Landowne Springfield Rd Springfield Rd Gladstone Oregon Saxer Ave Clifton-Aldan Providence Rd Learny Ave Woodland Ave Magnolia Ave Thomson Ave North St Springfield Mall Primos Bartram Ave Fern Rock Paper Mill Rd Secane Andrews Ave Philadelphia2035: Planning & ZoningPine Ridge for a Healthier City Darby Trans. Ctr. Page 21 Morton MacDade Blvd Beatty Rd Curtis Park Providence Rd Swarthmore Sharon Hill Manchester Ave Folcroft Edgmont St Wallingford Glenolden Monroe St Moylan-Rose Valley Sharon Hill Norwood Jackson St Prospect Park Olive St Ridley Park Eastwick Veterans Sq Media Crum Lynne Eddystone Terminal A Chester T.C. Media Highland Ave Terminal B Marcus Hook Terminal C & D Wawa Terminal E & F Claymont Philadelphia Wilimington International Airport Airport Churchmans Crossing

Newark Healthy Food Access Philadelphia2035 Objectives on this topic: 1.1.4 Provide convenient access to healthy food for all residents

Philadelphia is one of the first large US cities to address issues of healthy food access in its Comprehensive Plan. Through Get Healthy Philly, The Depart- ment of Public Health and The Food Trust are making great strides in providing healthier options in underserved neighborhoods through the creation of more farmers’ markets and a major expansion of the Healthy Corner Store Initiative. Meanwhile, various economic development programs and the new Zoning Code are lowering financial and regulatory hurdles to building new supermarkets. Philadelphia2035 seeks to support and expand upon these and other initiatives and create policies that positively affect the spatial aspects of food access.

What is the relationship between food access and public health?

The presence of a supermarket in a neighborhood predicts greater consumption of fruits and vegetables and a reduced prevalence of overweight and obesity.42,43,44 Inadequate access to healthy and affordable foods is a particular concern in Philadelphia’s low-income and minority neighborhoods, where residents are half as likely to have access to quality grocery stores as residents of high-income neighborhoods. Local data suggest that nearly 70% of Philadelphians would eat more fruits and vegetables if they were available in their neighborhood.45 Facilities such as farmers’ markets, urban farms, and community gardens create opportunities for social interaction and provide educational opportunities for children, while simultaneously providing direct access to produce and other goods at affordable prices.

Intriguing research is emerging around the intersection of food access, land use and transportation: A study of local supermarket site designs and household travel choices to those markets showed a strong relationship between pedestrian-oriented design of supermarkets and the proportion of shopping trips performed on foot.46 The number of Philadelphia residents who reported that they ‘always walk’ to their nearby grocery store (1/2 mile or less) ranged from 36% to 66%. At the same time, households near automobile-oriented supermarkets with higher rates of driving also reported lower incomes Above: A fresh produce display and new cold and lower rates of automobile ownership.47 storage inside a corner store participating in The Food Trust’s Healthy Corner Store Initia- tive, which supplies training and resources to corner stores that want to offer healthier options. To date, more than 400 stores participate are signed up to participate in the program. The goal: 1000 stores citywide.

Page 22 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Above: Saturday morning at the Clark Park What can the City do to improve healthy food access? farmers market.

The city can create policies that better integrate food production and distri- Below: A recently opened supermarket in bution into existing public and community facilities, and ensure adequate Northern Liberties is designed to welcome space and proper zoning for healthy food suppliers in neighborhood centers pedestrians as well as motorists. The market and commercial corridors. Specific strategies include: is 1 block from Girard Station on the Market- Frankford Line. A first floor setback allows for • Locate new healthy food sources near transit stations to improve ac- ample sidewalk space and overhead lighting. cess for those without cars;

• Use district planning to identify publicly-owned lands suitable for new supermarket development, healthy corner store development, community gardens, and urban farms;

• Invest in transportation infrastructure of all kinds (including sidewalks) that improve access to existing and planned healthy food sources;

• Apply and enforce zoning regulations that require supermarkets to be pedestrian-friendly and provide developers with incentives of additional square footage for providing fresh food markets;

• Permit on-street produce displays at corner stores and small markets;

• Permit and encourage farmers’ markets and urban agriculture in city- owned properties such as schoolyards, rec centers and neighborhood parks;

• Identify new farmers’ market locations based on factors such as limited existing access to healthy foods, density of fast food outlets, and local auto-ownership rates.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 23 Open Space Access Philadelphia2035 Objectives on this topic: 6.1.1 Complete independent and park-based trail systems 6.1.2 Create a corridor network that connects parks, neighborhoods, and trails citywide 6.2.1 Improve and increase waterfront recreational opportunities 6.3.1 Ensure that all Philadelphians live within a 10 minute walk of a neighborhood park or recreation center 6.3.2 Connect neighborhood parks and trails to neighborhood centers and major public facilities 8.1.2 Rehabilitate abandoned industrial infrastructure for new uses

What is the relationship between open space and public health?

Numerous studies show a positive association between the provision of -at tractive recreational space and an increase in walking and physical activity.48 Physical activity is more likely to occur when public open space exists within close proximity to residences.49 Medians, inactive rail corridors, utility rights of way and easements that run through high density areas create opportunities for new open spaces (see Objective 8.1.2 above).

Both the number of neighborhood parks in proximity to one's residence and the types of amenities at the park (i.e., lighting, sports fields) predict the Above: The rebuilt South Street Bridge, duration of physical activity in children.50, 51 reopened November 6, 2010, will also include a staircase and ramp down to a lengthened Schuylkill River Trail, pictured below. The trail In busy urban environments, open spaces promote stress reduction, and have extension will begin in 2011. been linked to reduced depression and better self-rated health.52 The connection between access, proximity, and health supports the equitable dis- tribution of open space: children who live within shorter distances to parks, playgrounds, and recreational facilities tend to be more active compared to those children who do not live near such facilities.53, 54 With the highest proportion of older people out of the 10 largest cities, seniors are another critical subpopulation to consider in creating safe and active spaces to maintain active lifestyles.

Green2015: An Action Plan for the first 500 Acres. Commissioned by Phila- delphia Parks & Recreation in cooperation with PCPC and produced by PennPraxis, Green2015 is an action plan to add 500 acres of greened public space in the city by 2015. This goal, established by Greenworks Philadelphia, the City’s sustainability plan, is designed to provide park space to residents who currently do not live within a half-mile walk of a park. This supports the longer-term objectives of Philadelphia2035.

Page 24 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Addressing Health in the Citywide Plan

Above: Penn Treaty Park. What can the City do to improve open space access? Below: Opportunities for additional publicly The Citywide Plan lays out a number of strategies within the Open Space accessible green space such as vacant land element for improving access. Thanks to Green2015, a project of the Parks (red) and schoolyards (blue) are shown below. & Recreation Department and PennPraxis to identify criteria for acquiring an Existing open spaces and half-mile walks from each one are shown in green. Green2015 additional 500 acres of green space, PCPC has a set of tools to follow during identifies 5 major areas where the greatest district planning that will help zero in on the most underserved areas and inequity exists: South Philadelphia around identify the most needed types of open spaces in different neighborhoods. Broad and Snyder Streets, the formerly indus- The city can leverage publicly held land and vacant property to create new trial sections of North Philadelphia, the Lower open space opportunities. Northeast, the Oak Lanes, and certain sections of West Philadelphia. The Master Plan for the Central Delaware calls for a series of new open spaces connected by a trail system. In some cases, the city can prepare Requests For Proposals (RFPs) requiring the design and provision of new publicly accessible parks as components of new private development projects.

Access to existing systems is another key component to creating a healthier built environment. Philadelphia2035 identifies gaps in the trail system and priority corridors where connections can be made. District plans will allow planners to address connectivity issues across the city, including missing gate- ways, obstructed rights-of-way, and ways to accommodate new pedestrian and bicycle routes.

Maintenance and upkeep of recreational spaces is also of vital importance. Philadelphia2035 recommends ensuring sufficient funding for the Depart-

Opportunities For Publicly Accessible Green Space ment of Parks & Recreation. Distance .5 mile walk

Existing Public Green Space

Public & Private Vacant Land

Places Of Worship Land & Cemeteries

School Yards

Parks and Recreation Centers Not Public And Green

Sources: PCPC, Penn Praxis, DRWC, & WRT

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 25 Active Transportation Infrastructure Philadelphia2035 Objectives on this topic: 4.2.1 Implement a Complete Streets Policy for the city to ensure that the right of way will provide safe access for all users 4.2.2 Improve safety for pedestrians and bicyclists and reduce pedestrian and bicycle crashes 4.2.3 Expand on- and off-street networks serving pedestrians and bicyclists 4.3.4 Improve pedestrian connections across major rights-of-way 9.1.1 Preserve the walkable scale of the city

What is the relationship between active transit (walking and biking) and public health?

Bike paths and clearly delineated bike lanes can enable bicycle use and po- tentially decrease the number of bicyclist and pedestrian injuries.55, 56 Biking can help people meet minimum requirements for physical activity. Health benefits of physical activity include a reduced risk of premature mortality and reduced risks of chronic diseases associated with obesity, including heart disease, hypertension, colon cancer, and diabetes mellitus.57, 58 Regular participation in physical activity also appears to reduce depression and anxiety and improve mood.59 As a non-motorized form of transport, bike trips do not contribute to noise or air pollution emissions. Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and other emissions produced by automobiles are strongly associated with decreased respiratory health and cardiovascular problems. Above: A buffered bike lane is a new cross- town cycling facility. There is also a relationship between health and the increased costs of liv- Below: A sharrow marking on Berks Street in ing that come with automotive commuting. As transportation expenditures North Philadelphia. continue to rise, the amount households have to spend on housing, food, education, insurance, health care, and other needs decreases. Prohibitive transportation costs can interfere with employment prospects, economic self-sufficiency, and access to needed goods and services including health care and food. Providing affordable public transit, and sufficient infrastructure to support active transportation, is one way to address these inequities that negatively impact health, particularly in low-income communities.

Page 26 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Above: A rendering of the Race Street What can the City do to improve bicycle and Connector, an interactive art installation, pedestrian facilities and promote active transit? lighting display, and wayfinding system that will improve pedestrian access to the The City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan establishes a policy framework and rec- Delaware River waterfront. ommendations for investment priorities based on national best practices and careful analysis of Philadelphia’s existing sidewalk and bike facility networks. Philadelphia2035 will apply these recommendations and others during Dis- trict Plans, including:

• Complete an on-street bicycle network citywide of various bicycle facilities that vary by street type, including buffered bike lanes, marked shared lanes, bicycle friendly streets, contraflow lanes, and cycle tracks;

• Publish a Complete Streets Manual that provides engineering and design guidelines for different street typologies to better accommodate a mix of modes, including cars, public transportation, cyclists, and pedestrians; apply the standards in the manual to Streets Department projects whenever possible;

• Use Philadelphia-specific bike and walk audit tools to identify and electronically catalog site-specific issues, and direct public money to the areas of greatest need;

• Install bike parking to meet demand, including bike stations and on- Above: Wide sidewalks and continuous bike lanes were incorporated into the new South street bike parking spaces, and require bike parking in new developments (as Street Bridge. outlined in the new Zoning Code, see Page 29 for explanation);

• Improve and increase connections between the on-street network Below: A bicycle corral in University City and the trail system, including the Schuylkill River Trail and the planned Dela- provides parking for the area’s many cycling ware River trail; commuters.

• Reuse formerly industrial lands and abandoned rights-of-way (including the Reading Viaduct and the Lehigh Viaduct) for new trails.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 27 Health & The New Zoning Code Zoning is the single most significant way that PCPC can direct growth, manage density, and encourage land use patterns that create well connected, accessible, and healthy neighborhoods. PCPC and Zoning Code Commis- sion staff incorporated a number of health-supportive regulations into the new code, summarized below. A major outcome of each District Plan (page 31) will be detailed land use maps to guide zoning map revisions.

Mixed-Use Districts

New ‘Neighborhood Commercial Mixed-Use’ and ‘Industrial Residential Mixed-Use’ districts will enable people to live closer to their jobs, minimizing the need for auto ownership and improving walkability. Low-impact manufac- turing uses will foster artisanal and industrial businesses and encourage live/ work lofts. These new districts can be applied as zoning map revisions occur. See: Neighborhood Centers, Page 16 Above: The Navy Yard contains a mix of manu- facturing, traditional commercial, and green industry businesses. Age-friendly Neighborhoods

In the new code, daycare is now defined as including services for children and adults, enabling older Philadelphians to age in place and making it easier to provide services to seniors where they live. The new code also encourages visitability, which refers to housing designed so that it can be lived in or vis- ited by people with mobility limitations. A certain number of units in certain residential zones must be made ‘visitable.’ See: Neighborhood Centers, Page 16

Transit-Oriented Development Standards

Areas around designated stations must conform to design standards that encourage a pleasant pedestrian environment, require active ground floor uses, and prohibit auto-centric uses. In station areas that can accommodate Above: Adult day care for elderly and disabled it, TOD standards permit additional density to make it easier for more people persons is defined in the new Zoning Code and to access transit. In Center City, areas around the 3 major regional rail sta- is a permitted use in many districts. tions offer higher base density than is permitted elsewhere, with bonuses up to a Floor Area Ratio of 26. See Transit-Oriented Development, Page 18 Below: Some areas will be subject to parking maximums. Parking Maximums & Carshare Priority

The new code establishes maximum parking standards in certain use districts to promote the more efficient use of land, encourage transit use, reduce congestion and improve air quality. See: Transit-Oriented Development, Page 18; Improved & Expanded Transit Services, Page 20

Page 28 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Zoning can more effectively link residential areas to open space and recreational opportunities, sources of healthy foods, and major centers of employment by encouraging infill in accessible neighborhood centers and directing new growth to those areas with the infrastructure to support additional density

Food Access Above: City-owned parking lots around AT&T Station and the Sports Complex are one TOD area identified in the new Zoning Code. This In the new code, urban agriculture and community gardens are now permit- urban design study shows one way to lay out ted as-of right (meaning that the use does not require a zoning variance) in new development around a neighborhood- most residential and commercial districts. Animal husbandry is permitted in scale street grid. most industrial districts. If a fresh food market is incorproated into a project, that square footage does not count against the maximum buildable area. See: Healthy Food Access, Page 22 Building Use Key Commercial

Mixed-Use Open Space Residential Structured Parking

SEPTA Stations New design standards require contiguous open spaces that are focal points of new large developments and are deed-restricted to prevent future development. The new code encourages open space design that connects to other open spaces. See: Open Space Access, Page 24 Above: Greensgrow Farm in the city’s Kensing- ton neighborhood Sidewalk Standards

For projects of a certain size, the new code empowers a Civic Design Review Committee to assess the potential impacts projects might have on sidewalks Below: The Piazza at Schmidt’s is an example of a private development providing a meaning- and other aspects of the pedestrian environment (this is in and of itself a ful and valuable public space. type of Health Impact Assessment). See: Neighborhood Centers, Page 16 Transit-Oriented Development, Page 18 Active Transportation Infrastructure, Page 26

Bicycle Parking

Bicycle parking spaces are required in all new public parking lots, multi-family buildings with 12 or more units, and developments with more than 7,500 square feet of floor area. See: Active Transportation Infrastructure, Page 26

Want to learn more? A Zoning & Health Handbook is in the works for 2011 that will provide a more in-depth look at the new Zoning Code and how zoning map revisions can promote active living, improve food access, and shape healthier communities.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 29 Page 30 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Looking Ahead: District Plans & Health Impact Assessment The health-supportive objectives of The Citywide Plan provide a policy framework for building a healthier Philadelphia. The new Zoning Code furthers these objectives with regulations that encourage a healthier built environment. These documents lay a solid foundation for better health, but their adoption alone is not enough. A plan’s impact on health de- pends on where and how its recommendations are applied. The same is true for zoning: to measure its impact on health, we must identify where and how different uses and development standards are mapped, and the degree to which private development occurs in line with these regulations.60 District Plans provide that opportunity.

District Plans, completed in a 5-year cycle across 18 newly defined planning districts, will translate policies into specific land use choices and infrastructure investment strategies. Perhaps most importantly, the plans will guide zoning map revisions using the new Zoning Code. These site-specific decisions result in measurable changes to the built environment. These changes, in turn, have quantifiable impacts on health outcomes and the behaviors associated with them. To raise awareness of these impacts and to encourage decision-makers to adopt plans and zoning map revisions that improve health, PCPC and PDPH are incorporating Health Impact Assessment (HIA) into the district planning process.

Philadelphia’s Planning Districts:

PCPC will be creating detailed plans for each of the 18 new areas identified in the map at left. Smaller than the 12 Planning Analy- sis Sections used prior to the start of the Philadelphia2035 process, the new districts allow PCPC staff to undertake finer analysis and work more effectively with community organizations.

Starting in 2011, PCPC will complete 4 District Plans per year, producing land use recommendations that will lead to zoning remapping in each area. It is PCPC’s goal that all District Plans and zoning remapping be completed by 2015.

With a new planning process in place, and new systems established to measure progress, PCPC will update District Plans every 5 years.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 31 Looking Ahead: District Plans & Health Impact Assessment

Health Impact Assessment (HIA)

Applications of HIA in Planning HIA is a process whereby the health impacts of proposed plans, projects, or policies are systematically evaluated in order inform decision-making. 61 HIA is an effective way of raising awareness of public health issues in policy Project-based: arenas commonly disassociated from health, such as zoning, land use, and city planning. Thus far, HIAs undertaken in the U.S. around built environment PCPC hopes to apply HIA methods as topics have focused largely on the impacts of specific development projects.62 another way to evaluate proposed Philadelphia is one of the first major U.S. cities as of this writing to standard- development projects. HIA can in- ize the practice of HIA within district planning and rezoning activities. form staff recommendations and/or provide new information to Planning 63 Commissioners tasked with reviewing HIAs vary widely in subject and scope, but all follow the same general steps. and approving projects. The steps describe a typical HIA in the context of a District Plan.

Plan-based: 1) Screening: Is an HIA worth doing? The Healthy Communities Coordinator, the district planning team, and HIA Task Force members determine the feasi- This report outlines the role HIA will bility of conducting an HIA, considering whether the process could influence play in District Plans. Primarily, PCPC decision-making or improve the proposed project, plan, or policy. anticipates using HIA to support proposed zoning map revisions. HIA 2) Scoping: What health issues do we address in this HIA? In each District can also provide useful analysis to promote key public projects within a Plan, community input can help determine priority topics for HIA (a key given district, including new invest- development site, a contentious proposed zoning change, a unsafe roadway, ments in parks and active transporta- etc.) as well as the populations most affected by the plan or project. The HCC tion infrastructure. and team also determine which assessment methods to employ at this time.

Policy-based: 3) Assessment: What evidence do we gather to illustrate the health impacts of the plan or project? The HIA team gathers evidence as to the effects of the A number of U.S. municipalities have plan, project, or policy on the health determinants and outcomes of interest. used HIA to analyze policy proposals HIAs frequently incorporate a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods. and provide decision-makers with In some cases, community members participate in this phase through key new information. While this is less applicable to the district planning informant interviews, focus groups, or participatory environmental audits. process and development review overseen by PCPC, HIA could be a 4) Reporting: How can we disseminate this information, and to whom? The useful tool for PDPH as it promotes findings of the HIA are shared to inform a decision-making process. Depend- new policies to support healthy eat- ing on the topic of the HIA, this could mean anything from a zoning map ing and active living. revision put before City Council to the inclusion of a particular capital project in an agency’s budget.

In the context of District Plans, HIA will:

• offer health-based rationales for the prioritization of certain projects • explain the health consequences implicit in zoning decisions • raise awareness of the health impacts of land use and development choices • encourage greater community participation in the planning process • empower residents to advocate for health-supportive decision-making

Page 32 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Looking Ahead: District Plans & Health Impact Assessment

The Healthy Planning Toolbox

The Healthy Planning Toolbox offers a mix of quantitative and qualitative spatial assessment tools designed to assist planners identify opportunities to improve health. Currently, the Toolbox contains 3 tools, each described below:

PHILATool (Planning & Health Indicator List & Assessment Tool) is the primary tool in the toolbox. It matches measurable indicators to the health-supportive objectives of Philadelphia2035. The tool is used in district planning to assess baseline health conditions across the city and identify priority issues and opportunity areas in each district. Completed analysis will be posted periodically on the forthcoming Philadelphia2035 website. Moving forward, PCPC and PDPH hope to develop a public interface to allow Philadelphia residents to create maps of various indicators and health outcomes as they apply to their own districts. PHILATool is adapted from the Healthy Development Measurement Tool,64 a product of the San Francisco Department of Public Health’s Program on Health, Equity, and Sustainability.

How many residents live near a commercial corridor offering fresh produce? Above: Walkable access to viable commercial Which rec centers are the most accessible on foot to the greatest proportion of residents? corridors and community-serving capital facili- How many more residents could we accommodate around identified TOD stations? ties are two issues PHILATool will help address. What proportion of residents live within walking distance of a waterfront trail entrance? In a high vacancy area, which parcels are best kept for new open space? Or urban farms? Below: By zooming into high-crash locations and areas of concern to residents, audits of The PHILATool consolidates data on health and the built environment to answer these and many walking and biking environments can help other questions. Appendix A shows the indicators we will measure for each district. prioritize improvements and identify solutions.

Bicycling Environmental Audit Tool: This observational survey tool helps characterize intersections or street segments relative to a series of indicators that affect the safety and comfort of the cycling environment.65,66

Walkability Audit Tool: Functionally identical to the Bicycling Environ- mental Audit Tool, this measures a set of indicators shown to affect safety in the pedestrian environment.

District Plans are the first opportunity to apply these tools as independent exercises and as part of larger HIAs of particular projects and plans proposed in different districts. The Toolbox will help planners and residents reach consensus on strategies for addressing community health priorities. The data that the tools produce can support grant applications to move projects into implementation, provide the basis for indepth longitudinal evaluation of a project, and communicate to decision-makers the health-based rationale for supporting a given alternative. Tools will be added to the Toolbox as they are completed.

The Healthy Planning Toolbox will be incorporated into new websites for Philadelphia2035 and Get Healthy Philly, both launching in early 2011.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 33 Looking Ahead: District Plans & Health Impact Assessment

Potential HIA topics in District Plans

Lower South District

Sports Complex as a TOD. The new Zoning Code identifies the area around the Sports Complex and AT&T Station as a Transit-Oriented Development node. What is the capacity of the Sports Complex area to absorb more commercial development and to incorporate residential uses? How would the creation of a new neighborhood in this area impact walkability and safety? How would a more diverse land use mix impact car traffic and travel decisions? How might these changes impact physical activity and air quality?

Built Environment Links to Health: Above: A 2008 rendering for Philly Live!, an Density, Mix of Uses entertainment-centric proposal for new devel- Walkability/street connectivity opment around the Sports Complex. Embrac- ing the concept of TOD in this area could mean Access to public transit a more mixed-use, higher density development scenario for the area overall. Health Impacts for Consideration: Commute mode choice -> daily physical activity -> obesity Traffic congestion -> air quality -> respiratory health Traffic congestion -> crash rates -> mortality

The Navy Yard Subway Extension. The Navy Yard is a successful and growing hub for green industry and commercial businesses. What effect would a subway have on the Navy Yard’s ability to accommodate residential and/or recreational uses? Can we expect significant reductions in automobile traffic and corresponding increases in active commuting mode share? What impact does this have on obesity and associated conditions for that population?

Built Environment Links to Health: Access to employment opportunities, goods and services Access to public transit

Health Impacts for Consideration: Commute mode choice -> daily physical activity -> obesity Commute mode choice -> air quality -> respiratory health

River Wards District

Trail Linkages to Delaware River Waterfront. Certain neighborhoods in this Above: An existing feasibility study for a district are situated in close proximity to a planned Delaware River trail sys- Broad Street Line extension to The Navy Yard tem that will provide miles of space for physical activity and recreation. How identified 2 new stations. The dashed orange line shows the proposed alignment. Expand- can the district plan in this area improve access to that asset, and what might ing non-automotive access to this area raises this and other improvements to active transportation infrastructure, includ- interesting questions about future zoning and ing extension of the Frankford/Tacony Creek and an adaptation of the Lehigh land use decisions. Viaduct, do to affect rates of physical activity, obesity and chronic disease?

Page 34 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Looking Ahead: District Plans & Health Impact Assessment

Built Environment Links to Health: Access to trails and open space Active transportation infrastructure

Health Impacts for Consideration: Commute mode choice -> daily physical activity -> obesity Commute mode choice -> air quality -> respiratory health Open space access -> daily physical activity -> obesity

Lower Northeast District

Roosevelt Boulevard Transit and Related Zoning Map Revisions. A rapid transit extension along Roosevelt Boulevard will impact this and several other districts in a number of ways. How might this investment affect people’s ability to travel without a car, and what does that mean for cost of living and daily activity rates? What kind of zoning changes would support a more pedestrian-friendly environment without disrupting the existing neighborhood fabric? What would the impact be on rates of obesity and associated conditions?

Built Environment Links to Health: Access to employment opportunities, goods and services TOD, walkable communities, mix of uses Access to non-automotive transportation options

Health Impacts for Consideration: Commute mode choice -> daily physical activity -> obesity Commute mode choice -> air quality -> respiratory health Above: A snapshot of open space access in the River Wards and the lower and central Northeast. Half-mile pedestrian access to all publicly accessible open spaces was calculated using GIS software. The streets visible in green indicate areas within that walking radius. Areas where the street grid fades out do not have adequate access. This particular view highlights the significant difference that parks and trails along the North Delaware waterfront would make for certain neighborhoods.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 35 Looking Ahead: District Plans & Health Impact Assessment

The HIA Task Force

The HIA Task Force is an interagency group of City staff members committed to creating a health-supportive built and natural environment in Philadelphia. As of this writing, the Task Force consists of representatives from the following city agencies and departments:

Philadelphia City Planning Commission Philadelphia Department of Commerce Philadelphia Department of Public Health (PDPH) Philadelphia Parks & Recreation (P&R) Mayor’s Office of Sustainability (MOS) Name: Aaron Ritz Mayor’s Office of Transportation & Utilities (MOTU) Agency: Mayor’s Office of Transportation and Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) Utilities Zoning Code Commission (ZCC) Title: Active Transit Coordinator “I work to help people get around by public Task Force members act as a direct point of contact between the Healthy transit, walking and biking, building physical Communities Coordinator and partner agencies. As active participants in activity into people’s daily lives. Making it safe, the district planning process, they can report back to their own agencies on affordable, and convenient to move around PCPC’s recommendations and work to coordinate their efforts with any zon- without a car is a great way to encourage active living. HIA can help raise awareness of ing or land use changes that may significantly affect the character of an area. this and build support for active transportation Regular meetings will be scheduled during District Plans in order to: projects and programs.” Review PHILATool and provide data for its applications;

Share data that can contribute to multiple departmental initiatives;

Provide training in Health Impact Assessment methods;

Identify ways that participating agencies can support Philadel- phia2035 objectives;

Determine ways that HIA can inform a plan or shape the outcomes of a proposed project.

Name: Sarah Wu Whether it’s coordinating infill housing development with commercial cor- Agency: Mayor’s Office of Sustainability ridor improvements to maximize pedestrian access to retail services, or working to align a PWD Green Street project with an MOTU Complete Street Title: Outreach and Policy Coordinator project to lower costs, this collaboration promises to be a valuable outcome “As the Mayor’s Office of Sustainability works of the district planning process. with our many partners to make Philadelphia the greenest city in America, we understand that a city isn’t sustainable unless it fundamentally supports the health and well-being of its residents. My office promotes equitable and increased access to open space and healthy local food, and as PCPC completes District Plans, HIA tools can help locate these amenities where they will be most effective.”

Page 36 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Looking Ahead: District Plans & Health Impact Assessment

Community Engagement Around Public Health District Planning Launch & Outreach Staff are considering a number of ways to maximize public participation Strategies throughout District Plans. It will be the responsibility of the Healthy Com- munities Coordinator, working in conjunction with district planning teams, March 2011 marks the beginning of the Task Force, and other participants, to identify ways that the public health District Plans. A one-day event will impacts of planning can serve to galvanize greater participation and build serve as the official release of the Citywide Plan and provide Philadel- consensus around specific recommendations. Though scope and methods phians with an opportunity to learn will vary from district to district, PCPC and PDPH are confident that HIA will more about district planning. add value to the plans and lend weight to recommendations for zoning map revisions. Other ways to get involved include:

Through internal analysis, focus groups, surveys, and public meeting feed- Citizens Planning Institute back, particular issues will present themselves during District Plans as clear public health priorities. When a District Plan advances ideas with potential effects on a health determinant or outcome, the Healthy Communities Coordinator can screen the issues to determine whether HIA is feasible and productive. He can subsequently establish contact with community constitu- ents, conduct site visits, and enlist the help of community planners, Task The education and outreach arm of Force members, and others as necessary to conduct an assessment. In some PCPC offers courses on city planning cases, rapid and non-participatory HIA might be sufficient to determine likely and development to empower citizens impacts and prepare evidence to support or counter a proposal. In others, to take a more effective and active role in shaping the future of their neighbor- public participation will be essential for scoping community health concerns hoods. and uncovering new evidence. Public meetings Health-oriented outreach methods for upcoming District Plans may include:

Using the Walk and Bike Audit Tools to empower Philadelphians to examine their own neighborhood environments and assist in the analysis of existing conditions;

Expanding an online mapping interface developed for the Pedestri- an and Bicycle Plan that would allow district residents to annotate Google maps with the public health resources and obstacles they PCPC will host meetings in each district observe and perceive in their neighborhoods; to gather input from residents. www.phila2035.org Creating online surveys for residents of each planning district around topics such as access to healthy foods and recreational spaces;

Providing a public health breakout session as one of the standard elements in district planning public meetings to help determine the scope of an HIA for that district. An official website will allow residents to review draft materials, respond to surveys, and track progress. Announce- ments and updates will be posted to Facebook: facebook.com/phila2035

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 37 Page 38 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Next Steps

As District Plans move forward, PCPC, PDPH, and other participating agencies will continue to expand and refine the use of HIA tools and methods as part of the planning process. These efforts will raise awareness about the health impacts of physical planning and development decisions, inspire increased public participation in District Plans, and help produce recommendations and zoning map revisions that support healthy lifestyles and livable neighborhoods.

In advance of a March 2011 kickoff to district planning, we will continue to develop the Healthy Planning Toolbox, train staff to use the tools, and work with our Task Force members and other partners to gather data on health outcomes and the built environment factors that affect them.

Throughout 2011, we also plan to:

Integrate material on the built environment, public health, and HIA into new courses for the Citizens Planning Institute, the education and outreach arm of PCPC;

Create a Zoning & Health Handbook that provides a more in-depth look at the relationships between zoning and improved health outcomes. This educational resource will be produced in conjunction with PCPC and ZCC staff for initial use in the Citizens Planning Insitute’s spring semester;

Continue to add relevant public health and built environment information to the Philadelphia2035 website for ongoing and upcoming District Plans;

Move forward with a publicly accessible version of PHILATool that will allow Philadelphia residents to explore physical factors affecting the health of their communities;

Work with the Task Force to identify HIA topics where increased awareness of public health impacts would inform decision-making.

The Philadelphia City Planning Commission and the Philadelphia Department of Public Health welcome any questions, comments or feedback on this report or the activities it describes. For more information, please contact:

Clint Randall Healthy Communities Coordinator Philadelphia Department of Public Health Philadelphia City Planning Commission 1515 Arch Street, 13th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19102

215-683-4685 [email protected]

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 39 Page 40 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City References

1 Booth, Pinkston, et al. (2005). Obesity and the Built Environment. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 105 (5, Supple- ment 1): 110-117.

2 American Planning Association. (2010) Available at http://www.planning.org

3 Jackson, RJ. (2001) What Olmsted Knew. Western City. Available at URL: http://www.environment.emory.edu/who/olmsted.shtml

4 Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 US 365 (1926).

5 Frank, LD , Engelke, P. O. and Schmid, T. L. (2003). Health and community design: The impact of the built environment on physical activity, Island Press , Washington, DC.

6 Ewing R. and Kreutzer R. (2006). Public Health And The Built Environment: A Report Prepared For The LEED-ND Core Commit- tee, Washington, DC.

7 Frank LD. (2004). Community Design and Individual Well Being: The Multiple Impacts of the Built Environment on Public Health. A Narrative Presentation to the Obesity and Built Environment Conference Of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sci- ences. Washington, DC.

8 Frank, LD , Sallis, JF , Conway, TL , Chapman, JE , Saelens, BE, and Bachman, W. (2006). ‘Many Pathways from Land Use to Health: Associations between Neighborhood Walkability and Active Transportation, Body Mass Index, and Air Quality’, Journal of the American Planning Association, 72: 1, 75 - 87.

9 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.(2007 & 2008). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Atlanta, Georgia: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

10 Public Health Management Corporation, Community Health Database. (2008). Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Survey.

11 Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. (1999). Physical Activity & Health: A Report from the Surgeon General. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/sgr/summary.htm

12 Frank, LD , Andresen, M. & Schmid, T. (2004). Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27(2): 87-96.

13 Public Health Management Corporation, Community Health Database. (2008). Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Survey.

14 Lynch JW, Kaplan GA, Pamuk ER, Cohen RD, Heck KE, Balfour JL, Yen IH. (1998). Income inequality and mortality in metropolitan areas of the United States. Am J Public Health. 88(7):1074-1080.

15 Yen IH and Syme SL. (1999). The Social Environment and Health: A Discussion of the Epidemiologic Literature. Annual Review of Public Health 20:287-308.

16 Public Health Management Corporation, Community Health Database. (2008). Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Survey.

17 Public Health Management Corporation, Community Health Database. (2008). Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Survey.

18 Public Health Management Corporation, Community Health Database. (2008). Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Survey.

19 U.S. Census Bureau, 2008 American Community Survey.

20 Karpyn A, Axler F (2006). Food Geography: How Food Access Affects Diet and Health. The Food Trust.

21 Giang R, Karpyn A, Laurison HB, Hillier A, Perry RD. (2008). Closing the Grocery Gap in Underserved Communities: The Creation of the Pennsylvania Fresh Food Financing Initiative.” J Public Health Mgmt Practice (14)3; 272-279

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 41 References

22 Borradaile K, Sherman S, Vander Veur S, McCoy T, Sandoval B, Nachmani J, Karpyn A, Foster G. (2009). Snacking in Children: the Role of Urban Corner Stores. Pediatrics; published online October 12, 2009. DOI: 10.1542/peds.2009-0964

23 Public Health Management Corporation, Community Health Database. (2008). Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Survey.

24 Frank, LD , Andresen, M. & Schmid, T. (2004). Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 27(2): 87-96.

25 Frank, L. D. , Schmid, T. , Sallis, J. F. , Chapman, J. and Saelens, B. (2005) Linking objective physical activity data with objective measures of urban form. American Journal of Preventive Medicine 28 , pp. 117-125. — (Suppl. 2)

26 McCormack GR, Giles-Corti B, Bulsara M. (2007). The relationship between destination proximity, destination mix and physical activity behaviors. Prev Med.

27 Lee C. & Vernez Moudon A. (2006). Correlates of Walking for Transportation or Recreation Purposes. Journal of Physical Activ- ity & Health.

28 Litman, T. (2010) Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits. Victoria Transport Policy Institute for The American Public Transportation Association. Retrieved from: http://www.vtpi.org/documents/public.php

29 Simkhovich BZ, Kleinman MT, Kloner RA. (2008) Air Pollution and Cardiovascular Injury: Epidemiology, Toxicology, and Mecha- nisms. J Am Coll Cardiol. 52(9):719-26.

30 Janssen NA, de Hartog J, Harssema H, Knape M, van Vliet P. (1997) Air pollution from truck traffic and lung function in children living near motorways. Epidemiology. 8:298-303.

31 Specter A, Diamond J, Norstrand J, Hoffman C, Glicksman A. (2006). Looking Ahead: Philadelphia’s Aging Population in 2015. Philadelphia Corporation for Aging.

32 Besser LM, Dannenberg AL. (2005). Walking to public transit: steps to help meet physical activity recommendations. Am J Prev Med, 29(4): 273-80.

33 Transportation Research Board. (2009). Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions. Transportation Research Board Special Report 298. Retrieved from: onlinepubs.trb.org/ Onlinepubs/sr/sr298.pdf

34 Frank LD, Engelke P. How land use and transportation systems impact public health: A literature review of the relationship between physical activity and the built form. ACES: Active Community Environments Initiative Working Paper #1. http://www.cdc. gov/nccdphp/dnpa/pdf/aces-workingpaper1.pdf

35 Litman, T. (2010) Land Use Impacts on Transport: How Land Use Factors Affect Travel Behavior. Victoria Transport Policy Insti- tute. Retrieved from: http://www.vtpi.org/documents/public.php

36 Janssen NA, de Hartog J, Harssema H, Knape M, van Vliet P. (1997) Air pollution from truck traffic and lung function in children living near motorways. Epidemiology. 8:298-303.

37 Ewing R. and Kreutzer R. (2006). Public Health And The Built Environment: A Report Prepared For The LEED-ND Core Commit- tee, Washington, DC.

38 Hadayeghi A, Shalaby AS, Persaud BN. (2003) Macrolevel accident prediction models for evaluating safety of urban transportation systems. Transportation Research Record. 1840: 87-95.

39 Ewing, R. et al. (2003) Relationship Between Urban Sprawl and Physical Activity, Obesity, and Morbidity. American Journal of Health Promotion. 18(1): 47-57.

40 Ewing R. and Kreutzer R. (2006). Public Health And The Built Environment: A Report Prepared For The LEED-ND Core Commit- tee, Washington, DC.

Page 42 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City References

41 Litman, T. (2010) Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits. Victoria Transport Policy Institute for The American Public Transportation Association. Retrieved from: http://www.vtpi.org/documents/public.php.

42 Inagami S, Cohen DA, Finch BK, Asch SM. (2006) You are where you shop: grocery store locations, weight, and neighborhoods. Am J Prev Med; 31(1):10-7.

43 Morland K, Diez Roux AV, Wing S. (2006) Supermarkets, other food stores, and obesity: the atherosclerosis risk in communities study. Am J Prev Med; 30(4): 333-9.

44 Treuhaft, S. & Karpyn, A. (2010) The Grocery Gap: Who Has Access to Healthy Food and Why It Matters. Retrieved from: www. thefoodtrust.org/php/programs/grocerygap.php

45 Public Health Management Corporation, Community Health Database. (2008). Southeastern Pennsylvania Household Survey.

46 Maley, D.. and Weinberger, R. (2010) Food Shopping in the Urban Environment: Parking Supply, Destination Choice, and Mode Choice. Presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 25, 2011.

47 Maley, D.. and Weinberger, R. (2010) Food Shopping in the Urban Environment: Parking Supply, Destination Choice, and Mode Choice. Presented at the 90th Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., January 25, 2011.

48 Giles-Corti b, Broomhall MH, Knuiman M., Collins C, Douglas K., Ng K, Lange A, Donovan RJ. (2005). Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am J Prev Med

49 Roemmich JN, Epstein LH, Raja S, Robinson J, Winiewicz D. (2006) Association of access to parks and recreational facilities with the physical activity of young children. Preventive Medicine 43(6):437-441.

50 Ewing R. and Kreutzer R. (2006). Public Health And The Built Environment: A Report Prepared For The LEED-ND Core Commit- tee, Washington, DC.

51 Roemmich JN, Epstein LH, Raja S, Robinson J, Winiewicz D. (2006) Association of access to parks and recreational facilities with the physical activity of young children. Preventive Medicine 43(6):437-441.

52 Maller C, Townsend M, Pryor A, Brown P, St. Leger L. (2005). Healthy nature healthy people: ‘contact with nature’ as an upstream health promotion intervention to populations. Health Promotion Int’l21(1):45-53.

53 Roemmich JN, Epstein LH, Raja S, Robinson J, Winiewicz D. (2006) Association of access to parks and recreational facilities with the physical activity of young children. Preventive Medicine 43(6):437-441.

54 Cohen DA, Ashwood JS, Scott MM, Overton A, Evenson KR, Staten LK, Porter D, McKenzie TL, Catellier D. (2006). Public parks and physical activity among adolescent girls. Pediatrics. 118(5): e1381-1389.

55 Hadayeghi A, Shalaby AS, Persaud BN. (2003). Macrolevel accident prediction models for evaluating safety of urban transportation systems. Transportation Research Board. 1840:87-95.

56 Litman, T. (2010) Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits. Victoria Transport Policy Institute for The American Public Transportation Association. Retrieved from: http://www.vtpi.org/documents/public.php.

57 Frank, LD , Engelke, P. O. and Schmid, T. L. (2003). Health and community design: The impact of the built environment on physical activity, Island Press , Washington, DC.

58 Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. (1999). Physical Activity & Health: A Report from the Surgeon General. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/sgr/summary.htm

59 Centers for Disease Control & Prevention. (1999). Physical Activity & Health: A Report from the Surgeon General. Retrieved from: http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/sgr/summary.htm

60 Ellen J, Thornton R et al. (2009) Zoning For A Healthy Baltimore. A Health Impact Assessment of the Transform Baltimore Zon- ing Code Rewrite. Center for Child and Community Health Research. Johns Hopkins University.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 43 References

61 UCLA Health Impact Assessment Clearinghouse Learning & Information Center. (2010) Available at http://www.hiaguide.org/ glossary. Accessed May 2, 2010.

62 UCLA Health Impact Assessment Clearinghouse Learning & Information Center. (2010) Available at http://www.hiaguide.org/ hias. Accessed June 15, 2010.

63 UCLA Health Impact Assessment Clearinghouse Learning & Information Center. (2010) Available at http://www.hiaguide.org/ glossary. Accessed May 2, 2010.

64 Bhatia R, Comerford C, Gaydos M, McLaughlin J, Wier M et al. (2007). The Healthy Development Measurement Tool. www. thehdmt.org. San Francisco Department of Public Health, Program on Health, Equity and Sustainability. Created 2007. Training received 2010. First accessed April 25, 2010.

65 Retting RA, Ferguson SA, McCartt AT. (2003). A review of evidence-based traffic engineering measures designed to reduce pedestrian--motor vehicle crashes. Am J Public Health 93(14): 56 - 63.

66 Elvik R. (2001). Area-wide urban traffic calming schemes: a meta-analysis of safety effects. Accid Anal Prev 2001; 33(3): 27-36.

Page 44 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Appendix: The Healthy Planning Toolbox

PHILATool (The Planning & Health Indicator List & Assessment Tool) Page 46

BEAT (Bicycling Environmental Audit Tool) Page 50

WAT (Walkability Assessment Tool) Page 52

All tools subject to modifications based on preliminary applications and supplemental evaluation of their validity and utility. Additional tools may be developed to conduct HIAs dealing with health outcomes not addressed by the current set of tools. PCPC will make every effort to share analysis produced through these tools on www.phila2035.org.

Training manuals for BEAT and WAT will be developed so that staff in multiple agencies and organizations outside of government can apply the surveys.

The existing tools are adaptations of equivalent instruments developed by staff of the San Francisco Department of Public Health’s Program on Health, Equity, and Sustainability (www.sfphes.org) The PHILATool is a local version of the Healthy Development Measurement Tool (www.thehdmt.org). PCPC and PDPH are exploring options to create an interactive version of the PHILATool that would be made available online.

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 45 PHILATool (The Planning & Health Indicator List & Assessment Tool)

Citywide Plan Objective Indicators Agencies

Proportion of community-serving capital facilities located within neighborhood cent- PCPC 1.1.1 Strengthen neighborhood ers as identified and defined in Philadelphia2035 centers by clustering community- Proportion of community-serving capital facilities within 1/4 mile of one another PCPC serving capital facilities Proportion of households within 1/2 mile of community-serving capital facility or PCPC, Parks & Rec, facility cluster School District

Number of Special Services Districts (SSD) and Business Improvement Districts (BID) Commerce 1.1.2 Strengthen neighborhood Number of retail births within commercial corridor Commerce centers by developing viable com- Pedestrian/auto volumes along stable or growing corridors corridors PennDOT, MOTU mercial corridors Number of parcels (and/or total square footage) rezoned (upzoning in commercial PCPC core/downzoning to residential and other uses in less viable sections) OR ratio of # parcels zoned commercial to vacant commercial parcels Square feet of new development within 1/4 mile of rail station L&I, PCPC 1.1.3 Strengthen neighborhood Number of parcels (or square footage of land) within TOD development districts PCPC centers by promoting transit-orient- upzoned to encourage higher density development ed development around identified Proportion of city land area subject to TOD standards as defined by new Zoning Code PCPC stations Proportion of total population within TOD development areas PCPC Population with TOD census tracts reporting commute to work via transit PCPC

Number of healthy food sources (supermarkets, farmers’ markets, healthy corner PDPH, Food Trust 1.1.4 Provide convenient access to stores, produce vendors) PDPH, PCPC healthy food for all residents by lo- Access to healthy food sources (weighted scores based on PDPH Food Access Study) cating food production and distribu- Proportion of population within 10 minute walk (or 1/2 mile) of healthy food sources PDPH, PCPC, MOS tion facilities in neighborhood and Ratio of healthy food sources to fast food outlets PDPH metropolitan centers Square footage of land zoned to permit urban agriculture as of right PCPC Proportion of fresh food vendors accepting Philly Food Bucks PDPH

Number of infill projects TBD 1.2.3 Promote new housing de- Number of non-contiguous vacant properties RDA, Pub. Property velopments to strengthen existing Number of or acreage of parcels rezoned from industrial to other uses through PCPC neighborhood assets remapping located in neighborhood centers PHA, PHDC, local Percentage of publicly funded units within 1/4 mile of transit or commercial corridor CDCs,

$ spent on remediation/feasibility studies for reuse of sites TBD 2.2.2 Reposition former industrial # of scattered vacant industrial sites PIDC, RDA, MOS sites for new users Acreage of land zoned for industrial mixed use as defined in the new Zoning Code PCPC

Percent of system in state of good repair SEPTA 4.1.1 Invest in existing infrastructure Money spent/committed to projects to improve existing transit system MOTU, SEPTA to improve service and attract riders System ridership and precent of mode share captured SEPTA, PCPC

linear miles of net new track/total route miles MOTU, SEPTA 4.1.2 Extend transit network to Money received through New Starts, EDA/HUD/DOT and other funding sources to MOTU serve new markets expand system Number of feasibility, engineering, and design studies in progress for projects identi- MOTU, SEPTA fied in Philadelphia2035 Proportion of city population within 1/4 mile walking distance of rapid transit PCPC

Page 46 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City PHILATool (The Planning & Health Indicator List & Assessment Tool)

Citywide Plan Objective Indicators Agencies

Linear miles of Complete Streets as defined by forthcoming Complete Streets MOTU, Streets 4.2.1 Implement a Complete Streets Manual Policy for the city to ensure that the Linear miles of auto travel lane --> bike lane conversions MOTU, Streets right of way will provide safe access Linear miles of dedicated transit lanes MOTU, Streets, for all users SEPTA

Number of improvements implemented as recommended in the Philadelphia MOTU, PCPC Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan 4.2.2 Improve safety for pedestrians Linear miles of dedicated on-street bike lanes MOTU, Streets and bicyclists and reduce pedestrian Number of pedestrian bicycle and pedestrian injuries and fatalities PennDOT, Police and bicycle crashes

Linear miles of on- and off-street trails, sidepaths, watefront trails planned/con- MOTU, Streets, structed/completed PCPC, SRDC, DRWC 4.2.3 Expand on- and off-street MOTU, PCPC, CCD networks serving pedestrians and Linear miles of dedicated on-street bike lanes, buffered lanes, cycle tracks bicyclists Linear footage of new sideawalks added MOTU, Streets Number of on-street bicycle parking stations MOTU

Number of parking spaces in off-street parking garages in Center City PCPC 4.3.2 Control automobile conges- Street meter occupancy MOTU, PPA tion through traffic management and planning Traffic volume PennDOT, MOTU Automobile modeshare PCPC

Money received to design and implement new pedestrian connections TBD 4.3.4 Improve pedestrian connec- Number of pedestrian connections under/over I-95 constructed DRWC, PennDOT tions across major rights-of-way Number of pedestrian connections across railroads TBD

Number of planned trail projects completed (or linear mileage) SRDC, DRWC, PEC, 6.1.1 Complete independent and Annual level of Parks & Recreation funding relative to need Parks & Rec, PCPC park-based trail systems Private funds devoted to trail design and construction TBD

Number of miles of new park trails Parks and Rec 6.1.2 Create a corridor network that Number of Complete Streets that serve trailheads MOTU, PCPC connects parks, neighborhoods, and Number of Complete Streets that intersect major parks MOTU, Parks & Rec trails citywide Proportion of citywide population within 1/4 mile of the corridor network PCPC

Money spent on transit infrastructure that improves waterfront access MOTU, SEPTA Linear feet of greenways/green streets/Complete Streets constructed to river- MOTU, PWD, others front access points 6.2.1 Improve and increase water- Linear miles of accessible waterfront DRWC, SRDC, PCPC front recreational opportunities Number of on-water access points (docks, put-in points, etc.) DRWC, SRDC Number and square acreage of waterfront parks DRWC, SRDC Acreage of waterfront land rezoned from industrial to residential or mixed use PCPC

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 47 PHILATool (The Planning & Health Indicator List & Assessment Tool)

Citywide Plan Objective Indicators Agencies

Proportion of citywide population within 1/4 mile walking distance of Parks and PCPC, Parks & Rec, 6.3.1 Ensure that all Philadelphians Recreation facilities MOS live within a 10 minute walk of a neighborhood park or recreation center

Number of safe routes between neighborhood centers, major public facilities, and MOTU, PCPC 6.3.2 Connect neighborhood parks Parks and Recreation centers as measured by Walkability Audit Tool scores and trails to neighborhood centers Money spent on roadway improvements that improve walkability and safety be- TBD and major public facilities tween major public facilities and Parks & Recreation facilities

Total linear feet (for railroad corridors and utility rights of way) and/or total acreage TBD (for parcel-based industrial facilities) returned to productive use 8.1.2 Rehabilitate abandoned indus- Number of formerly industrial buildings reused for residential or community uses TBD trial infrastructure for new uses Percentage of Philadelphia2035 corridor and trail network implemented using TBD industrial rights of way Number of pedestrians counted at key intersections and along key corridors DVRPC, MOTU,PCPC 9.1.1 Preserve the walkable scale of Number of zoning variances granted to permit curbcuts, parking facilities, and other PCPC design features shown to decrease pedestrian safety the city Total acreage of zoning map revisions that apply pedestrian-friendly zoning PCPC

Demographics Health Outcomes

Population density Proportion of families with children under 18 District population by race Asthma hospitalization rate per 1,000 Per capita and household median income Diabetes hospitalization rate per 1,000 Proportion living below the poverty level Heart failure hospitalization rate per 1,000 Average household size Obesity rate per district Unemployment Hypertension rate per district Residential mobility Diabetes cases (self-reported) High school graduation rate Asthma cases (self-reported) Proportion population non-english speaking Leading causes of death by age-adjusted death rates Proportion foreign-born Leading causes of death by years of life lost Proportion of youth Infant mortality rate Proportion of seniors

Notes: Agency refers to the agency that maintains the datasets necessary to calculate or analyze the given indicator. This does not necessarily mean that the indicator has already been calculated/tracked/analyzed. Many of the indicators will be addressed as District Plans progress. If no agency is listed next to an indicator, it means that the appropriate agency and/or data source have not been confirmed. Demographics data will be collected using the U.S. Census 2010 as it is released, and is analyzed by the City Planning Commission (PCPC). Health Outcomes data comes from the Philadelphia Health Management Corporation (PHMC) Household Health Survey 2010, and is analyzed by the Philadelphia Department of Public Health (PDPH). PCPC will make every effort to share data, maps, and charts as they are produced through the Philadelphia2035 website. Eventually, we hope to create an interactive online portal that will allow the public to look at the indicators of interest to them and compare across Districts. PHILATool is a dynamic tool that will be edited, expanded, and modified throughout the process. Public input is welcome.

Page 48 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 49 Bicycling Environmental Audit Tool subject to Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) DRAFT further Philadelphia Department of Public Health (PDPH) refinements

Neighborhood: Surveyed By: Staff Use Only Planning District: On Behalf Of: Database Entry: Project: Survey Date: GIS Entry: Worksheet 1: Corridor Evaluation (Page 1 of 2) Intersection ID #: Primary Street A. INTERSECTIONS (from GIS file, to be filled in by staff upon submission of Seconday Street: survey form) Tertiary Street (if applicable): Indicator: Values: Comments Intersection Design 0 3 1. No Turn on Red 1 4 Sign(s) 2 Yes Specify the location of signage and orientation of the signage 2. Bicycle-specific No signage (such as 'yield to cyclists' or 'share the road' Yes Specify whether the treatments exist on the primary, secondary, or all streets 3. Pavement Treatment (dashed or colored Yes, poor intersection bicycle lane) condition No 4. Sight Line None Determine obstruction from the lane a cyclist would use to move through the intersection. If no bike lane exists, use the righthand-most auto lane. Consult Obstructions (signs, tree Partial manual for examples of obstructions. cover, etc.) Full Street Name: Cross Street #1: (start point) B. STREETS Segment ID#: (to be filled in by staff) Cross Street #2: (end point) Indicator Values: Comments i. Vehicular Traffic 4+ Lanes 5. Number of Auto 3 Lanes Travel Lanes (not including 2 Lanes turning only lanes) 1 Lanes No Lanes Yes 6. Two Way Traffic No Yes 7. Posted Speed Limit No

If Posted, 10 ___ 15 ___ 20 ___ Select Speed 25 ___ 30 ___ 35 ___ Limit: 45 ___ 55 ___ 55+ ___ TCFs (separate from those in intersection, check all that apply):

8. Compliance with Yes Using stop watch, record time in seconds it takes for a motor vehicle to travel the Posted Speed Limit No length of the block. PCPC staff can determine block length and calculate 8a. Avg. Observed approximate observed speed. 9. Traffic Calming Features 0 TCFs 3-4 TCFs 1-2 TCFs 5 or more Check all observed TCFs (consult BEAT Manual for examples and definitions) Curb extensions or bumpouts Pavement treatments Speed humps Speed tables Median Island (ped-friendly) Painted Median Concrete Median Partial closures

Page 50 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Worksheet 1: Corridor Evaluation (Page 2 of 2) B. STREETS (In the remaining sections, conditions are recorded separately for each side of the street separately ) ii. Sidewalks Indicator Values: N/E Side S/W Side Comments Parallel < 7ft Requires tape measure. Provide width of angled parking area in this section, measuring Parallel 7ft - 9ft perpendicular from the curb. 10. Parking Adjacent to Parallel > 9ft Bicycle Lane/Route Angled parking Other None BL, Parking Adjacent at Right BL, No Parking Adjacent 11. Presence of a BL, Traffic Lane Adj. at Right Marked Area for Bicycle Sharrow Traffic (BL = Bike Lane) Contraflow Lane Bike & Transit-Only Lane Other 11a. Lane Width Painted buffer Painted with Bollards 12. Bicycle Lane/Route Concrete (cycletrack) Buffer Parking Lane Other 12a. Buffer Width Clearly visible 13. Bicycle Facility Occasionally faded Quality Mostly faded No Longer Visible Continuous tree line 14. Trees Sporadic tree line None Lane continues across intersection Lane intersects bicycle facility at intersection 15. Connectivity Lane leads to sidepath or off- street trail Bicycle signage directs to nearby facilities None iii. Safety Smooth Mild Impediments 16. Pavement Condition Moderate Impediments Major Obstructions Total Number Enter width in feet. Garages with entry/exit 17. Curb Cuts Total Width from same cut count as 2 18. Bike Lane Signage Present Y/N 19. Bicycle/Pedestrian Yes Scale Lighting No Yes Mark 'yes' only if the trolley tracks cross the 20. Trolley Tracks bike corridor. Parallel tracks out of the bike No ROW are not a safety concern. The following additional safety indicators require departmental data not available during the survey. Staff use only.

21. Local Crash Data

22. Average Daily Traffic (ADT)

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 51 Walkability Assessment Tool Philadelphia City Planning Commission (PCPC) (subject to further Philadelphia Department of Public Health (PDPH) DRAFT refinements)

Neighborhood: Surveyed By: Staff Use Only Planning District: On Behalf Of: Database Entry: Project: Survey Date: GIS Entry: Worksheet 1: Street, Intersection, and Neighborhood Evaluation (Page 1 of 2) A. INTERSECTIONS Intersection ID #: Primary Street (from GIS file, to be filled in by staff) Seconday Street: Tertiary Street (if applicable): If Yes, Total Cycle Time (seconds) 6. No Turn on Red Sign(s) 1. Traffic Yes Yes, One Street Along Primary Along Secondary Signal at If No, Stop Sign at Yes, All-Way Yes Street?No Yes Street?No Intersection No Intersection? No 7. Traffic Calming Features at Intersection Pedestrian Ped Signals Leading Pedestrian Marked Crossing 2. Crosswalk Signals with No Intervals? (Consult WAT (Consult WAT manual for definitions) Crosswalk Distance (in Features Countdown countdown manual for definition) (Y/N) feet) (Y/N) (Y/N) 0 TCFs 3-4 TCFs P Crossing 1 1-2 TCFs 5 or more P Crossing 2 Check all observed TCFs: S Crossing 1 Curb extensions or bumpouts S Crossing 2 Pavement treatments T Crossing 1 Speed humps T Crossing 2 Speed tables Median Island Faster than 3.5 ft/sec Slower than 3.5ft/sec Painted Median Concrete Median 3. Crossing Speed Primary Bike Lane at Intersection Secondary Partial closures (length in ft/time in seconds) Tertiary Roundabout Others/Comments: 4. Pedestrian-specific signage at Intersection (such Yes as 'yield to pedestrians' or 'pedestrian crossing') No

8. Pedestrian Counts at time of survey (15 min interval) Across primary Across secondary (In some instances, pedestrian counts taken at various times of day or week will be essential for properly assessing the project at hand and determining appropriate solutions. These should be completed during repeat visits by or in conjunction with city staff. A separate form is available for this purpose).

Street Name: Cross Street #1: (start point) B. STREETS Segment ID#: (to be filled in by staff) Cross Street #2: (end point) i. Vehicular Traffic Indicator Values: (Check box below) Comments 4+ Lanes 3 Lanes 8. Number of Auto Travel 2 Lanes Lanes 1 Lanes No Lanes Yes 9. Two Way Traffic No Yes 10. Posted Speed Limit No 10 ___ 15 ___ 20 ___ Speed: 25 ___ 30 ___ 35 ___ 45 ___ 55 ___ 55+ ___ TCFs (separate from those in intersection, check all that apply): Median Rumble strip Yes 11. Street Traffic Calming Speed hump Midblock crossing Features Bike Lane Signage No Enforcement Other? Automobile Average In instances where traffic volume is significant to the project at hand, city staff Daily Traffic (ADT) will provide this

Page 52 Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Worksheet 1: Street, Intersection, and Neighborhood Evaluation (Page 2 of 2) B. STREETS (In the remaining sections, conditions are recorded separately for each side of the street separately ) ii. Sidewalks Indicator Values: N/E Side S/W Side Comments No sidewalk 4'11" or less Measure a typical point at midblock. Measure 5' to 5'11" only the walking zone (from the furthest 12. Width of Sidewalk extension of the building zone to the edge of 6' to 7'11" the "furniture zone". For definitions and 8' to 9'11" examples, consult the WAT Manual. 10' or more No 12a. Significant Change Yes Measure in feet. Enter value in N/E and S/W in Width - Curb Indents boxes as total length per side If yes, total length 12b. Significant Change Vendors, newsstands, café seating Anything that narrows the Walking Zone as in Width - Parked vehicles measured in #12 by more than 2 feet for a Encroachments or Other temporary encroachment linear distance of more than 5 feet. Check all that apply. See WAT for further definitions Obstructions Other permanent encroachment and instructions. Significant 13. Impediments in Few See WAT for definitions. Walking Surface None None 1 or 2 16. Curb Cuts 3 or more Total Width per side Measure in feet Continuous tree line 17. Trees Sporadic tree line None

Yes Seating not associated with a commercial use 18. Public Seating No on the street Parallel parking Angled parking Bike Lane 19. Buffer from Traffic Rain garden Other None iii. Land Use None Few 20. Buildings setback Most from street wall All Total Frontage Measure in feet None 21. Active Commercial 1 or 2 Uses 3 or more Large office and/or retail center 22. Significant Pedestrian Rail station or major bus station Traffic Generators Museum/cultural attraction Other iv. Safety/Other Buildings 23. Vacancy Enter response as # of lots/buildings Unbuilt parcels Yes, on-street 24. Ped Scale Lighting Yes, attached to building No Yes 25. Construction Sites No 25a. Pedestrian detour Yes present No

Philadelphia2035: Planning & Zoning for a Healthier City Page 53