Objective ST.3 Create safe, quality environments for walking and biking

Indicators, Development Targets and Policies/Design Strategies

Indicators Development Targets Policies/Design Strategies
Primary
a. Ratio of miles of bike lanes and paths to miles of road

Does the project incorporate strategies that would significantly reduce bicycle collisions in the area by addressing:

1) Bicycle environment:

Benchmark #1: Does the project include (or is within 4 blocks of) bicycle lanes and/or paths linked to the city's existing bicycle network?
AND
Benchmark #2: Does the project incorporate at least 3 interventions from the following list?
  • Bicycle lanes at least 5 feet wide
  • Bicycle lane signs
  • Dashed intersection bicycle lanes
  • Double-striped bicycle lanes (striped on each side)
  • Driveway cuts are prohibited or kept to a minimum of 4 or fewer per street segment 
  • Left-turn bicycle lanes
  • Shared traffic lanes with sharrows (or painted bike marking on pavement) 
  • Smooth roadway pavement surface 
  • Street lighting (adequate for bicyclists) 
  • Street trees (traffic calming, improve bicycle environment)
  • Improve motor vehicle safety through mechanisms such as roadway design, intersection design, traffic calming and management, signals, signs and other measures.1-3
  • Improve pedestrian safety through design strategies such as traffic calming and management treatments, traffic safety enforcement, intersection, roadway and sidewalk design, design for pedestrians with disabilities, signals and signs, and improved lighting.4-6
  • Improve bicyclist safety through design strategies such as bike lane design, shared use paths, improved signs and markings, bicycle parking, traffic calming and management treatments, on-street facilities, and intersection design.7,8
  • Employ motor vehicle crash or accident reduction factors that have proven to be highly effective including roundabouts, exclusive turn lanes, strategically placed and timed traffic signals, red-light cameras, narrow lane widths, raised medians at crosswalks, and centerline rumble strips.9
  • Install and maintain attractive and effective signage to promote public safety, accessibility, and wayfinding.10,11
  • Include traffic calming design strategies which will increase pedestrian and bicycle safety (see also ST.3.a, Development Targets).12,13
  • Coordinate with San Francisco's Better Streets Plan, which will create a unified set of standards, guidelines, and implementation strategies to govern how the City designs, builds, and maintains its pedestrian environment.14
  • Ensure safe pedestrian entrances at all building access points through the use of: pedestrian-specific entrances, pedestrian-scale design on building frontages, pedestrian-scale lighting, street trees and planters, signage and street cleaning, and sidewalks free of impediments.15,16
  • Minimize the number and width of drive ways that break-up the sidewalk for pedestrians, especially the elderly, people with disabilities, and young children in strollers.17
  • Provide safe, convenient bicycle parking on streets and in parking garages. Bicycle racks should support the frame of the bicycle and not just one wheel, allow the frame and one wheel to be locked to the rack when both wheels are left on the bike, allow the frame and both wheels to be locked to the rack if the front wheel is removed, allow the use of either a cable or U-shaped lock, be securely anchored, be usable by bikes with no kickstand, be usable by bikes with water bottle cages, and be usable by a wide variety of sizes and types of bicycle with inverted U-racks or other racks that provide two points of contact with the bicycle.18,19
  • Increase street connectivity. In new developments, favor a gridiron street layout. In older neighborhoods with curved, disconnected streets install pedestrian/bicycle pathways to increase connectivity.20,21
  • Require or incentivize employers to subsidize employees who commute to work via mass transit, bicycle or foot.22,23
  • Provide secure, covered bicycle parking and changing facilities at workplaces.24,25
b. Proportion of commute trips made by biking

Same as ST.3.g.
c. Number of bicycle collisions

Same as ST.3.g.
d. Proportion of commute trips made by walking

Does the project incorporate strategies that would result in a significant increase in trips made by walking and reduce or prevent pedestrian injury collisions in the area by:

1) Pedestrian environment:

Benchmark: Does the project incorporate at least 6 interventions from the following list?
OR
Does the project achieve a one grade level improvement in the Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index score (in the acceptable range)?
  • Advance limit/yield lines at marked crosswalks
  • Corner bulb-outs
  • Crosswalks that are signalized and marked (preferably with a pedestrian countdown signal - especially when more than 2 lanes of traffic)
  • Driveway cuts are prohibited or kept to a minimum of 4 or fewer per street segment
  • Median refuge islands
  • Pedestrian-oriented building access
  • Pedestrian scale design on building frontages
  • Pedestrian scale lighting on private buildings and/or on public streets
  • Pedestrian specific building entrances
  • Public art in streetscape
  • Public seating in streetscape
  • Restaurants, retail uses and historical sites located in/near project area, approximately one destination per block
  • Safe routes to schools or other key pedestrian destinations, including senior facilities, health care, grocery stores, and public transit stops/stations
  • Sidewalk curb cuts for pedestrians at intersections and other pedestrian street crossings
  • Sidewalks free of impediments (so that people may walk and push baby strollers, etc. safely)
  • Sidewalks with a continuous curb with appropriately placed curb cuts for people with disabilities (an exception being pedestrian-oriented, Woonerf streets)
  • Street trees, planters, and gardens included in streetscape
  • Street cleaning addressed in project/plans - including trash can locations, graffiti removal where applicable
  • Signage for pedestrians, specific to the neighborhood/street - potentially including area maps

2) Pedestrian safety analysis:

Benchmark: Does the project:
a) identify areas (intersections, streets, small areas) where pedestrian injury collisions have occurred in or near the project area
OR
b) identify where potential future conflicts exist in or near the project area (e.g., when new residents or employees are being introduced to an area with a previously low population and/or high traffic volumes on streets)
AND
target pedestrian environment improvements to those areas?

3) Traffic calming:

Benchmark: Does the project include at least 4 of the following traffic calming interventions to slow traffic speeds and reduce risk of collisions (pedestrian as well as bicycle and vehicle-vehicle) and related injuries and deaths in the area?
  • Bollards (short vertical posts)
  • Channelization islands (raised island that forces traffic in a particular direction, such as right-turn-only)
  • Chicanes (curb bulges or planters on alternating sides, forcing motorists to slow down)
  • Chokers (raised islands in a parking zone that narrow a roadway).
  • Curb extensions, planters, or centerline traffic islands that narrow traffic lanes
  • Gateway treatments
  • Horizontal shifts (a lane centerline that curves or shifts)
  • Median islands (raised island in the road center)
  • Parking restrictions for on-street parking such as residential permit parking
  • Perceptual design features (e.g. patterns painted into road surfaces that encourage drivers to reduce their speeds)
  • Reductions in the number and width of traffic lanes (particularly on arterials)
  • Roundabouts (medium to large circles at intersections)
  • Rumble or warning strips
  • Semi-diverters, partial closures (restricts entry/exit to/from neighborhood and limits traffic flow at intersections)
  • Signal timing to reduce traffic speeds
  • Speed humps
  • Speed limit enforcement that is automated - such as photo radar speed enforcement or radar trailers which show drivers their current speed and the posted speed limit
  • Speed limit signs
  • Speed tables, raised crosswalks
  • Street closures (closing off streets to through vehicle traffic at intersections or midblock)
  • Street trees (create a sense of enclosure and improve the pedestrian environment)
  • Tighter corner radii (a tighter radius forces drivers to reduce speed)
  • Traffic circles
  • Truck restrictions (particularly in residential areas or near pedestrian-oriented uses)
  • Turn restrictions (to keep traffic on main traffic streets)
  • Woonerfs (streets with mixed vehicle and pedestrian traffic, where motorists are required to drive at very low speeds)
  • Another traffic calming strategy (please note)
e. Number and rate of pedestrian injuries

Same as ST.3.g.
f. Posted speed limits of 20 mph or less

Benchmark #1: Does the project use traffic calming devices to reduce speeds to less than 20 mph on interior streets?

AND

Benchmark #2: Do streets proximate to residential uses have posted speed limits of at or less than 20 mph?
Secondary
g. Area score on the Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index

Same as ST.3.g.

Health-based Rationale

  • Extensive travel in motor vehicles (many trips and/or long travel times), choosing driving over other transportation modes, and unsafe traffic mixes of motor vehicles, pedestrians, and cyclists all lead to increased risk of injury and death.26
  • Traffic volume increases the risk of pedestrian, cyclist and motorist injury and death.27 Pedestrians, cyclists and motorized two wheeler users bear a disproportionate share of the global road injury burden and are all at high risk of crash injury.28
  • Speed has an exponentially detrimental effect on safety. As speeds increase so do the number and severity of injuries.29 Studies show that the higher the impact speed, the greater the likelihood of serious and fatal injury. Excess and inappropriate speed is widespread and may contribute to around 30% of road traffic crashes and deaths. An average increase in speed of 1 km/h is associated with a 3% higher risk of a crash involving an injury. Pedestrians have a 90% chance of surviving car crashes at 30 km/h (18 mph) or below, but less than a 50% chance of surviving impacts at 45 km/h (28 mph) or above.30
  • A high quality pedestrian environment can support walking both for utilitarian purposes and for pleasure. Recent studies in the United States have demonstrated that people walk on average 70 minutes longer in pedestrian-oriented communities.31-32

  • Increased physical activity reduces risk of premature mortality and coronary heart disease, hypertension, colon cancer, and diabetes mellitus.Regular participation in physical activity appears to reduce depression and anxiety, improve mood, and enhance ability to perform daily tasks throughout the life span.33,34

  • Higher traffic volumes on local streets in San Francisco were found to be associated with residents’ perceptions of the street as unsafe, complaints regarding noise, fewer local friends and acquaintances, smaller perceptions of personal territory and decreased attentiveness to the street environment.35

  • Research has shown that traffic volume is a significant, strong predictor of risk for people being injured or killed while walking.36 Nationwide, pedestrians account for 11% of motor vehicle collision fatalities, with approximately 4,700 pedestrian deaths annually.37 15% of those people killed while walking die in California.38 Pedestrians account for approximately 50% of traffic-related deaths in San Francisco – which has an injury rate approximately five times above the Healthy People 2010 national objective of no greater than 19 injuries/year/100,000 people.39

  • Higher traffic volumes on local streets in San Francisco were found to be associated with residents’ perceptions of the street as unsafe, complaints regarding noise, fewer local friends and acquaintances, smaller perceptions of personal territory and decreased attentiveness to the street environment.40

  • Parental concerns about the lack of traffic lights and controlled crossings on their child’s school route reduce the likelihood that their child will actively commute to school.41

  • In an evaluation of a Safe Routes to School program, the presence of pedestrian safety measures at street crossings was associated with a greater likelihood of walking to school for children.42

Established Standards

  1. HP 2010 Objective 15.16: Reduce annual pedestrian deaths on public roads to <1/100,000. Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/
  2. HP 2010 Objective 15.18: Reduce annual nonfatal pedestrian injuries on public roads to < 19/100,000. Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/
  3. HP 2010 Objective 15.15: Reduce deaths caused by motor vehicle crashes. Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/
  4. HP 2010 Objective 15.17: Reduce nonfatal injuries caused by motor vehicle crashes. Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/
1. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Safety - Intersections. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersections/index.htm
2. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traffic Calming Library. http://www.ite.org/traffic/
3. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Safety - Road Safety Audits. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/rsa/index.htm
4. US Department of Transportation. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. http://www.walkinginfo.org
5. FHWA Pedestrian Safety Improvements. http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/saferjourney/library/matrix.htm
6. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traffic Calming Library. http://www.ite.org/traffic/
7. US Department of Transportation. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center. http://www.bicyclinginfo.org
8. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Traffic Calming Library. http://www.ite.org/traffic/
9. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Crash Reduction Factors for Traffic Engineering and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) Improvements: State-of-Knowledge Report. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_299.pdf
10. Downtown Raleigh Wayfinding Analysis & Recommendations, Raleigh, North Carolina. http://www.raleighnc.gov/publications/Planning/Urban_Design/Downtown_Wayfinding/Wayfinding_Analysis_and_Recommendations.pdf
11. Pedestrian Wayfinding Signage System, Portland, Oregon. http://www.portlandonline.com/TRANSPORTATION/index.cfm?c=40500
12. Victoria Transport Policy Institute "Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts" http://www.vtpi.org/calming.pdf
13. Transportation Research Record 1578 "Safety Benefits of Traffic Calming" http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/tcir0209.pdf
14. San Francisco's Better Streets Plan http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/planning/Citywide/Better_Streets/proposals.htm
15. US DOT FHA ADA Guidelines http://cp298pedbiketranspo.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/ADA_DesigningSidewalksAndTrailsForAccessPartI_1999.pdf
16. Florida Department of Transportation's Pedestrian Facilities Handbook http://cp298pedbiketranspo.wikispaces.com/space/showimage/FloridaDOT_PedFacilitiesHandbookTOC.PDF
17. Department of Transportation. Federal Highway Administration "Designing Sidewalks and Trails for Access Part II of II: Best Practices Design Guide" Chapter 5. Driveway Crossings http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/sidewalks/index.htm
18. Association of Pedestrian and Bicycle Professionals. "Bicycle Parking Guidelines" http://www.apbp.org/resource/resmgr/publications/bicycle_parking_guidelines.pdf
19. US Department of Transportation. Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center: Bicycle Parking http://www.bicyclinginfo.org/engineering/parking.cfm
20. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Online TDM Encyclopedia: Roadway Connectivity http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm116.htm
21. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: The Fused Grid http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/su/sucopl/fugr/index.cfm
22. SF Environment. Commuter Benefits http://www.commuterbenefits.org
23. San Francisco Chronicle "Emeryville firm pays employees to bike" http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/30/BUQF121EKO.DTL
24. San Francisco Bicycle Coalition: SF Bike Guide for Employers http://www.sfbike.org/?Employers_start
25. Cycle Friendly Employers: Equipment and Facilities http://www.cyclefriendlyemployers.org.uk/equipment_and_facilities.php
26. World Health Organization (WHO), Edited by Margie Penden, Richard Scurfield, David Sleet, et al. World Report on road traffic injury prevention, 2004. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/en/index.html
27. Ewing R, Frank L, Kreutzer R. Understanding the Relationship between Public Health and the Built Environment: A Report to the LEED-ND Core Committee. 2006.
28. World Health Organization (WHO), Edited by Margie Penden, Richard Scurfield, David Sleet, et al. World Report on road traffic injury prevention, 2004. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/en/index.html
29. Ewing R, Frank L, Kreutzer R. Understanding the Relationship between Public Health and the Built Environment: A Report to the LEED-ND Core Committee. 2006.
30. World Health Organization (WHO), Edited by Margie Penden, Richard Scurfield, David Sleet, et al. World Report on road traffic injury prevention, 2004. http://www.who.int/violence_injury_prevention/publications/road_traffic/world_report/en/index.html
31. Frank LD, Schmid TL, Sallis JF, Chapman J, Saelens BE. Linking objectively measured physical activity with objectively measured urban form: findings from SMARTRAQ. Am J Prev Med. 2005;28(2 Suppl 2):117-25.
32. Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Black JB, Chen D. Neighborhood-based differences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(9):1552-8.
33. 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
34. PolicyLink. 2002. Regional Development and Physical Activity: Issues and Strategies for Promoting Health Equity. http://www.policylink.org/Research/PhysicalActivity/
35. Appleyard D, Gerson MS, Lintell M. 1981. Livable Streets. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
36. Lee, C., Abdel-Aty, M., 2005. Comprehensive analysis of vehicle-pedestrian crashes at intersections in Florida. Accident Analysis and Prevention 37, 775-786; Loukaitou-Sideris, A., Ligget, R., Sung, H.G., 2007. Death on the Crosswalk: A Study of Pedestrian-Automobile Collisions in Los Angeles. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26: 338-351; Wier M, Weintraub J, Humphreys E, Seto E, Bhatia R. 2008. An area-level model of vehicle-pedestrian injury collisions with implications for land use and transportation planning. Accident Analysis & Prevention 41:137-145.
37. NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), 2006a. Fatality Analysis Reporting System, National Statistics. http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/
38. NHTSA (National Highway Traffic Safety Administration), 2006b. Traffic Safety Facts. http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/site/nhtsa/menuitem.dfedd570f698cabbbf30811060008a0c/
39. CCSF MTA (City and County of San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency Traffic Engineering Division), 2006. San Francisco 2005 Collision Report. San Francisco, CA; USDHHS (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services), 2000. Healthy People 2010: Understanding and Improving Health. 2nd ed., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
40. 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. National Research Council.
41. Davison KK, Lawson CT. Do attributes in the physical environment influence children's physical activity? A review of the literature. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2006;3:19.
42. Boarnet MG, Anderson CL, Day K, McMillan T, Alfonzo M. Evaluation of the California Safe Routes to School legislation: urban form changes and children's active transportation to school. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2005;28:134–140.