Livable Streets Where People Live

7/30/2019 Livable Streets Where People Live

1/18

URBAN PAPER SERIES 2012

LIVABLE STREETS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE

DENVER IGARTA


2/18

Livable Streets Where People LivePolicy Lessons on Broadening the Civic Role of Residential Streets from

Munich, Rotterdam, Copenhagen, and Malmo

Urban Policy Paper Series

December 2012

D I

D I w C P B T . H U R P F w w G M F U

S .

I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

B k . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

E C C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

M : M L S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

R : T S N . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

C : S F U L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

M : P V R w U . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

K P L . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

S j : T L T F S . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

M k A T S C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

H S : A H S P . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

C : T L P O U.S. C . . . . . . . . . . .


3/18

Livable Streets Where People Live 1

Introduction1

A w , , - , . T U

S w - , w

w . A ,

U S - x

.

The purpose of this paper is to document provenpolicies and practices from European cities thatmake local streets more livable, or attractiveplaces, but that nonetheless meet the essentialmobility requirement to move people and needs.A local street is a street that primarily providesaccess to local residences or businesses and theactivities created by these adjacent uses. Thisresearch does not produce another catalog of streetdesigns from Europe, but rather learns from localplanners, designers, and engineers about the strate-gies that have enabled their cities to broaden thefunction of streets.

In November 2011, I spent four weeks in fourcountries as a German Marshall Fund Urban andRegional Policy Fellow. I met with European coun-terparts in the fields of city planning, academia,advocacy, urban design, and engineering.The four cities on my study tour Munich(Germany), Rotterdam (Netherlands), Copenhagen(Denmark), and Malmo (Sweden) have decadesof experience strengthening the civic role of resi-dential streets.

This research finds that livable streets in Europeare supported by policies that ensure residentialstreets are designed to give priority to people ratherthan automobile traffic, to fit the scale and pace of humans over cars, and to recognize the importanceof sojourning in other words, opportunities tointeract or linger. The result is that residents valuethe social aspects of their streets as much as thesafety and physical amenities. In order to translatethese lessons to U.S. cities, planners, engineers, andcitizens will need to shift their understanding of the function of streets.


4/18

The German Marshall Fund of the United States2

Background2

S U.S. z . T - , , ,

, w k , . I

P , O , .

Urban streets are more than inter-joined connec-tions that serve car mobility and access. Rather,streets are public spaces that can promote socialinteraction, active living, and community identity.Streets can make entire neighborhoods attractiveor unattractive place to live. In Portland, streetsform the majority of the citys public realm (placesaccessible to the general public), but this spaceoffers residents few benefits once they are outsidetheir cars. Yet, since local streets comprise morethan 60 percent of the streets that the City of Portland maintains, they have a high potential tocontribute to the social and environmental capitalof a neighborhood.

Many planners and policymakers have not envi-sioned streets as potential contributors to a betterliving environment, and the auto-centric engi-neering practices that dominated the second half of the 20 th century led to the construction of many wide, divisive streets. Prior to the automobile era,streets often served as the lifeblood of neighbor-hoods, knitting together the urban fabric of peopleand places that make up a community. Today,streets are more commonly considered barriersbetween a neighborhoods residents. Streets, forexample, often confine people to their private space

or to a narrow sidewalk along the fringe.As a result, residential streets can be dangerousand uninviting places due to the threat of speedingtraffic. In 2008, the City of Portland reported that58 percent of residents limit walking, bicycling, ortaking transit due to concerns about traffic safety. 1 This concern may lead parents to instill a fear of the road in their children early in life. The risks vary according to the speed of traffic. The chancesof surviving after being struck by a car decreaserapidly with even slight increases in speed. Statisti-cally, nine out of ten pedestrians survive if the caris traveling 20 mph; five survive at 35 mph, andonly one survives at 40 mph. 2

There is a strong correlation between increased vehicle speed and wider streets. A recent study found that a neighborhood street would need tobe 26-28 feet wide to operate at 25 mph. 3 Morethan 45 percent of the local service streetsmaintained by the City of Portland are 30 feet orwider, often resulting in excessive driving speeds.The national highway manual that guides streetdesign (the AASHTO Green Book) declares that

design speed, or the speed selected to determine

Annual Report 2008-2009.P B Twww. . /

Inappropriate Speed. Road Safety Information.R S P A . D .www. .

3 SE Vancouver Street Livability Survey,DKS A , V , W .

A wide residential street in Portland, OR (Source: Igarta)
http://c/Users/cchumbler/Documents/Publications/Policy%20Papers/Urban%20Programs/Igarta_LivableStreets_Dec12/www.portlandonline.com/transportationhttp://www.rospa.com/http://www.rospa.com/http://c/Users/cchumbler/Documents/Publications/Policy%20Papers/Urban%20Programs/Igarta_LivableStreets_Dec12/www.portlandonline.com/transportation


5/18


the geometric design features of a roadway, isnot a major factor for local streets. 4 This discon-nect often leads planners to inappropriately apply highway dimensions to neighborhood streets.

Speeding is not the only consequence of widestreets. Oversized roadways are land-intensive,making them unsuitable for space-deficient urbanareas. Although public space is limited, streetsare commonly built to accommodate the highestpotential demand for parking and are designed tobe wide enough for the largest size vehicles suchas fire trucks. In addition, excessively wide streetsintroduce more pavement that must be maintainedand require more costly infrastructure to treatadded stormwater runoff.

4 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,6 E , A A S H w T O (AASHTO) G B k. .


6/18


T U S w w . I N , I E M , R ,C M w

. E k

w k, , j ,

, , .

Though these four European cities have success-fully restored or preserved the civic role of many of their residential streets, each have also experiencedpressure to facilitate mobility for motor vehicles,either as the result of a strong car culture, the pres-ence of a major international port, or growing carownership. Yet, these cities have fought for decadesto mitigate nuisances and safety concerns frommotor vehicle traffic in neighborhoods. Followingthe 1973 Oil Crisis, the four cities featured in thisstudy, along with other European cities, intensifiedtheir efforts to reduce their reliance on the automo-bile through an evolving set of policy strategies.

The engineering measures used to calm traffic inthese four cities vary considerably; however, themulti-objective approach of designing people-oriented streets is consistent. In essence, thesecities have adopted policies that allow for adaptingthe physical design of streets to match localcontext, acknowledging that one size does not fitall. In practice, that often means dialing-down the

volume and speed of motor vehicles, especially inresidential areas, and as a result reducing noise,auto emissions, and roadway footprints.

Munich: Mobility on a Local Scale

O , CG ,

w . A

. I j , B

M W k (BMW). A k

. S 995, BMW CM k

I z -I , w , , , z . T ,

, q . I SI z -I

,

k - w . M T M

M P ,

, I z I .

Although the citys historic development patternsgenerally preserved access for private automobiles,Munich has retained a high share of trips on publictransit and by foot and bicycle. In 2008, the modalshares for walking, bicycling, and transit were 28percent, 14 percent, and 21 percent, respectively.This modal balance can, in part, be attributed tolongstanding policies that cultivate a compacturban form, a strategy most recently articu-

lated in Perspective Munich (1998), the guidingframework for development in the city, and thecompanion Transport Development Plan(2006).These policy documents direct the citys invest-ments in transportation to be compatible with itsurban setting. They have also set the stage for

European Case Cities3


7/18


Nahmobilitt, or neighborhood accessibility projects, which aim to improve conditions fornon-motorized transport modes. For example, inLudwigsvorstadt-Isarvorstadt, a neighborhood justsouth of Munichs historic center, an action planrecommended affordable transport improvementssuch as the opening of one-way streets for two-way bicycle travel. The strategy, adopted in 2007, took a number of years to develop, underscoring theimportance of strong and continued political lead-ership throughout plan development.

In addition to strong planning policies, Munichhas utilized two types of traffic measures since the1980s to minimize the negative impacts of trafficon neighborhoods, namely the Verkehrsberuhigter Bereich(traffic calmed area) and the Tempo 30Zone (30 km/h under 20 mph zone). TheVerkehrsberuhigter Bereichis a walking pace (7 kmper hour) street without curbs and sidewalks wherepedestrians are allowed to use the entire roadway.Motorists must not impede or endanger pedes-trians and give them street priority. This design haslimited application, and is generally reserved forstreets that are only a few blocks in length and thatprimarily serve local access for residents along thestreet.

In 1988, Munich began converting entire neigh-borhoods to Tempo 30 Zones, which requiredfewer modifications to the existing infrastructurecompared to traffic calmed areas. As a result, 80percent of Munichs streets are currently designatedas Tempo 30. Most are simply treated with a 30km/h (19 mph) sign placed just as motorists entera residential area from a main route. Speed limitcompliance is essential to success. In Munich, if a

motorist is caught traveling at 40 km/h (roughly 25mph) on a Tempo 30 street, the individuals driverslicense is suspended for a month.

Munich is also expanding its use of the Fahrrad-strasse, or bicycle-street, which limits traffic toa bicycle-speed (Tempo 30), and gives bicyclists

priority while permitting them to ride side-by-sidein the roadway. In 2010, Munich shifted its focus topromoting bicycle use through its Radlhauptstadt ,or Bicycle Capital initiative. This marketingeffort highlights bicycling as a practical means of

transport but also as an essential part of the urbanlifestyle. Owing to its success, city officials reachedtheir five-year mode share target for bicycling (i.e.17 percent) in less than two years.

Across Munich, these policies and initiatives guidethe implementation of engineering measures thatfoster the design of a coherent street network. Theorder of Munichs street patterns (and especially the minimal use of speed reduction measures)contrasts starkly with other European cities inwhich streets are structured as labyrinths toprevent any cut-through traffic. Now, more than20 years after Munichs first Tempo 30 zone wasestablished, the quiet residential streets in the citysneighborhoods are the foundation of how Munichresidents get around by foot and bicycle.

Mangstrasse, Munich (Source: Igarta)


8/18


Rotterdam: The Sheltered Neighborhood

Throughout its history, Rotterdam has continu-ously reinvented itself through construction of state-of-the-art buildings and infrastructure, andthrough the flexible application of engineering anddesign standards. The transformation of modern-day Rotterdam began with the near-completedestruction of its central core during World WarII. It was subsequently rebuilt and modeled after amodern U.S. city complete with high-rise build-ings and broad streets, earning it the nicknameManhattan on the Maas. Rotterdams unofficialmotto throughout the second half of the 20 th century Cars are Welcome aimed to attractresidents, shoppers, and businesses to the city. AsMartin Aarts, Head of Spatial Planning, described,in the past (auto) accessibility was our pride, adistinction from other cities in the Netherlands. 5 The image of a car-based Dutch city endurestoday: multi-lane streets feed directly into the city center and ample parking garages make it relatively easy to move from one district of the city to thenext with automobiles.

Although the city was rebuilt after World War IIon the principle of facilitating auto access, city officials simultaneously designed new residentialareas that were protected from the negative impactsof motorized traffic. Neighborhoods developedsince the 1960s therefore tend to exhibit a variety of street patterns that aim to reduce the amountof cut through traffic. The citys current strategy,Traffic and Transport Plan for Rotterdam 2003-2020, continues this configuration and states thereshould be no through traffic in urban habitats.An urban habitat is defined as a contiguous resi-

dential area and its everyday destinations, such assupermarkets and schools.

As a result of the Transport Plan, planners haveconcentrated through traffic on the main (arte-

5 I w w M.J. A , A k F , M V j M G , G R (N 9, ).

rial) traffic routes located on the edge of the urbanhabitat areas, thus minimizing the negative impactsof automobiles on residential environments. Inorder to ensure adequate traffic capacity on themain routes, urban habitats are centrally servedby public transit. In addition, planners designatedseven primary mobility corridors (referred to asBundels routes) to link the suburbs to the centralcity through necessary capacity improvements.Recently, a team of urban designers, planners,and engineers in Rotterdam developed a conceptcalled functional ambience to evaluate the spatialquality of streets that places flow and place on anequal footing. 6 Thus, even on higher-order streets,

6 P j G A F AR , D U , G R , GC . O 7, .

No through traffic in urban habitatareas policy from the Rotterdam Traffic

and Transport Plan 2003-2020


9/18


planners account for place-making functions suchas access and sojourning.

Unlike Munich, traffic planners in Rotterdam havesignificant flexibility in designing street systems.As a result, road patterns often reflect the decadewhen the neighborhood was developed. Early on, planners made street systems circuitous orconstructed traffic barriers to avoid connectionsthat might attract cut-through trips. Today, roadnetworks follow a clear hierarchy comprising amix of street types that serve different roles withinthe system. Flexibility to tailor the infrastruc-ture to its location is critical since new suburbsare often reclaimed from marshland, creating aseries of both streets and canals. Traffic engineersand planners approach the construction of new areas with an understanding that improvisation isalways necessary. As a result, the street system inRotterdam is a patchwork of distinct neighborhoodnetworks (each offering different advantages anddisadvantages in terms of improving the quality of life) rather than a coherent citywide pattern.

Recently, Rotterdam began placing greater

emphasis on the needs of its youngest residentsby endeavoring to become a child-friendlycity. In 2007, the city launched a new program,Child-Friendly Rotterdam,to keep families in thecity by improving the quality of childrens livesand enhancing residential areas. The programis supported in policy by the 2030 RotterdamUrban Visionand a practical roadmap preparedin 2010 titled Rotterdam, a City with a Future.Theroadmap outlines essential features of a child-friendly city, including gearing public spaces to thespecific needs of children and creating safe traffic

routes that encourage children to explore the city and to independently engage with city life.

One of the most useful insights I gained duringmy trip was the principle, shared by ProfessorIneke Spap of NHTV Breda University, that whenresidents are asked to sacrifice something, such as

auto access, it must be clear and tangible what isbeing gained in return. 7 Professor Spap developedone model to achieve this called the Kid Grid,in which street space is given over as territory forneighborhood children to travel, play, or stay in a

safe environment completely independent fromtheir parents. 8 Kid Grids, which have been devel-oped in Amsterdam, Delft, and other Dutch cities,connect places that are identified by neighbor-hood children as important, such as schools, ballfields, community centers or playgrounds. They are routes with few cars, safe crossings, and high visibility. Neighborhoods that are designed to firstmeet the needs of children also means a constanteye is kept on the citys future, and more practically,that automobile access is given secondary consid-eration.

7 I w w P I k S NHTV B U -, B , NL (N , ).

8 K (K G ) k M . I k S SOAB. B , N .

Arie de Zeeuwstraat, Rotterdam (Source: Igarta)


10/18


Copenhagen: Streets to Foster Urban Life

Copenhagens reputation as one of the worlds mostlivable cities has reached near mythical status. Themunicipality has achieved a unique traffic mix thatis the envy of countless other urban areas. For morethan 50 years, Copenhagen has worked to reversethe negative effects of increased motor vehicletraffic through transportation policies that empha-size people over cars. This includes strategies suchas the reduction of parking for private automobiles,introduction of car-free areas in the city center,investment in bicycle infrastructure, and expansionof public transit. In 2010, 87 percent of Copen-hagen residents used a non-vehicular travel mode,i.e. bicycle (50 percent), transit (24 percent), orwalking (13 percent), 9 to reach their work. More

Copenhageners commute by bicycle than any othertravel mode. When asked why they bicycle, themost common response from Copenhageners issimply because it is faster (55 percent). 10 9 Copenhagen City of Cyclists: Bicycle Account 2010, C C .

I .

Several recent projects implemented by Copenha-gens Traffic Department have required significanttradeoffs for automobiles to improve conditionsfor other modes. This most notable is a five-yearproject that moved 40 percent of the cars off of Norrebrogade, a major commercial corridor. Theimplementation process involved two pilot phasesthat officials credit with allowing them to engagethe broader community and make necessary refinements to the streets final design.

Nonetheless, the number of daily car trips acrossthe municipal border rose from 392,000 to535,700 between 1970 and 2010. 11 Copenhagensapproach to increased traffic, including the strate-gies mentioned earlier, has remained consistentover the decades. Since the time of the oil crisis,the principle philosophy has been to foster formsof mobility that are most suitable for urban lifethrough strategies such as signal operations thatfavor transit and bicycle traffic and strict control of auto parking in the central city.

In particular, the theme of urban life, a metrop-olis that offers a high quality of living, is the

centerpiece of the citys vision and goals for 2015,outlined in the 2009 guiding document A Metrop-olis for People. This vision states simply that urbanlife is people and is what happens when we walk and hang out in public spaces. 12 Achieving thequality of urban life envisioned in Copenhagenrequires urban spaces that are not only inviting tomove through but also welcoming for people tostop and linger (sojourn).

Copenhagens planners use a number of creativeapproaches to strengthening the placemakingfeatures of streets, such as providing talk-scapes(where street furnishings are arranged in a manner

Copenhagen: Solutions For Sustainable Cities, O CITY OF COPENHAGEN.

A Metropolis for People: V G U C 5. M C .

Talk-scape on Nrrebrogade, Copenhagen (Source: Igarta)


11/18


that fosters social interaction) and edge zones13

(semi-private transition areas where the publicand private realms meet) that invite people to stay as part of a citywide goal to have Copenhagenersspend 20 percent more time in urban space by 2015.14

The community-building benefits of public spacesthat foster social interaction are magnified nearpeoples homes. One of Copenhagens main strate-gies for taming automobile traffic in residentialareas is to establish 40 km/h (25 mph) speed zonesin all residential areas by 2015. In one neighbor-hood, planners reduced speed limits from 50 to 40km/h (31 to 20 mph) and traffic accidents droppedfrom 36 to 21 over a three-year period. 15

Despite these positive effects, the implementationof these speed zones has stalled in recent years.One of the major hurdles to reducing speed limitsis that the Copenhagen police department, ratherthan the municipal traffic authority, has the finalword in modifications to speed limits. It is lessexpensive to place speed limit signs throughout anentire district, as done in Munich and Rotterdam,

than install costly traffic calming measures onevery street. However, the police departmenthas resisted this approach due to concerns overadditional speed enforcement needs. In order forCopenhagen to reach its residential traffic calminggoals by 2015, supporters of these goals musttherefore achieve buy-in from the police depart-ment that safer, more livable streets are worth thetradeoff of increased enforcement.

3 rhusgadekvarteret i Nordhavn, draft local plan. M C . R w A -S .

4 A Metropolis for People: Visions and Goals for Urban Life inCopenhagen 2015.M C . 9.

5 Traffic and Environmental Action Plan, 9 U , C C .

Malmo: Protecting VulnerableRoadway Users

Malmo, Sweden, has experienced a completetransformation over the past few decades. In themid-1980s, Malmo experienced an economic andidentity crisis after one of its major employers,a shipbuilder, left the city and released its 6,000employees. Over the next decade, Malmo lostanother 27,000 jobs, propelling a shift from anindustrial center to a knowledge and communica-tions hub. Emblematic of this shift is that at theformer shipyards today, the Western Harbor hasreemerged as a model urban community with4,000 residents and 300 companies that employ 7,000 people. This economic, environmental, andsocial shift in policy coupled with strengthenedlinkages to Copenhagen following the construc-tion of the Oresund Bridge (2000) and City Tunnel(2010) has placed Swedens third largest city inthe international spotlight.

Malmo is in the process of updating two key policy documents that guide improvements to its trafficenvironment: the 2012 Comprehensive Plan and

the Traffic Environment Programme 2012-2017.The city has long been recognized as the bicyclecapital of Sweden, and both plans continue toprioritize non-vehicular travel modes (walking,

Sdervrn bus station, Malmo (Source: Igarta)


12/18


bicycling, and public transport) as the founda-tion of the traffic system. During the height of the motor age (1960s), Malmo planners beganinvesting in a system of physically segregated cycletracks on major roadways. Today, Malmo has 260miles of bikeways, and about 40 percent of all jour-neys to and from work are made by bicycle.

Between 2005 and 2009, the City of Malmo servedas one of two lead demonstration cities for theEuropean Commission-financed CIVITAS SMILEproject. The project aimed to create a more sustain-able, clean, and energy efficient urban transporta-tion system by reducing traffic-related emissionsand noise. The city had a budget of 300 millionSwedish Krona (roughly $45 million) to implementmore than 50 SMILE projects during that timeperiod, including the introduction of low emission vehicles, demonstration bicycle infrastructure, andmarketing campaigns. As a consequence of thiscampaign, officials were able to integrate the citystransit system with its extensive bicycle network.This has led residents to take fewer trips by car insupport of the citys mission to eliminate what itdefines as ridiculous car trips those less thanthree miles. 16 Between 2003 and 2008, for example,the percentage of car trips in Malmo dropped from52 to 42 percent. 16

Malmos road safety efforts stem from the nationalVision Zero policy to eliminate traffic deaths andserious injuries, ratified by the Swedish Parliamentin 1997. A blanket speed limit of 50 km/h applies toall Malmo streets within the urban area, includingstreets with the most modest traffic levels. In recentyears, Malmo has considered converting entiredistricts to 40 km/h (25 mph) speed limits. To date,

however, lower speed limits are primarily reservedfor areas requiring the most heightened awarenessby motorists, such as school zones or commercialstreets in the historic center.

6 T k M j P M S - 7. R -. C M . O .

The citys traffic safety strategy aims to reducethe number of those seriously injured or killedby 5 percent each year. 17 The focus of new safety measures is to protect vulnerable roadway users(people walking or bicycling, or as the Head of Malmos Traffic Division put it, the soft ones)on busy four-lane arterial streets. These streetscompromise only 10 percent of streets in the city but account for 40 percent of those injured intraffic accidents. 18 The primary tool for improvingthe safety of these 50 km/h arterials is a raisedspeed table at zebra crosswalks, which forces

motorists to slow down to 30 km/h at the pointswhere the most significant conflicts with peoplecrossing on foot or bicycle exist.

While the bulk of municipal efforts focus onimproving safety along busy streets, some advanceshave also been made on quieter residential streets.A demonstration project in the Sdervrn neigh-borhood, situated adjacent to a major bus station,is the most notable example. In 2000, Malmostrafikskerhetsprogram(traffic safety program)introduced a unique mix of traffic calmingmeasures in Sdervrn, including raised intersec-tions, entry treatments and roadway narrowingon neighborhood streets. Still, the neighborhood-based safety project in Sdervrn remains theexception. Malmos data-driven approach toeliminate the most severe accidents has shifted thepriority for investments to main routes rather thanlocal neighborhood streets. While this may be aneffective approach to reduce severe traffic acci-dents on the busier streets, the citys challenge is toensure that it does not neglect the harmful impactsof automobiles on residential streets.

7 8 T k k M

8 I w w P W , M S (N).


13/18


T . R , w - w

. S

k 96 97 ,

x w . T k

I k w

G , N , D k, Sw w :

z j , z -, .

Sojourning: The Lost Third Function of Streets

The conventional view of the purpose of streets isto facilitate the efficient flow of traffic from originto destination. National manuals that guide streetdesign in the United States consider only trafficfunctions in designing streets; specifically, themobility function that addresses travel needs

enroute and the access function addressing wherethe trip ends. 19 From this perspective, the trafficfunction can be equated to the human circulatory system, which distributes blood carrying essen-tial nutrients and oxygen throughout our body.Nevertheless, it is necessary to recognize that bloodis carried through our bodies primarily to sustainour vital organs. Similarly, streets are essential toconvey traffic through our cities, but this functionshould not impair the places they connect.

One of the common threads of the livable streets

I discovered is that they emphasize the sojourn(staying) function over the traffic functions by giving precedence to features that make themattractive place to dwell. The concepts of functional

9 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets, 6thEdition, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Green Book. 2011.

ambience, Verkehrsberuhigter Bereiche, talk-scapes,and edge zones are a few innovations highlightedearlier in the case studies.

In Germany, the national manual guiding theconstruction of streets recognizes that the sojourn(or Aufenthalt ) function is of greater significancethan traffic functions on quiet residential streets. 20 In fact, the initial consideration in street design iswhether emphasis should be given to demands forpedestrian traffic, bicycle traffic, sojourning, oron-street parking. Only after this determinationis made are the transit function, traffic volumes,and the width of right-of-way considered, in thatspecific order.

This process stands in stark contrast to the auto-centric guidelines followed in most U.S. cities.While the AASHTO Green Book fails to articulatehow the sojourn function should help define thegeometric design of streets, it does recognize thatsome streets serve primarily to provide access toadjacent residential development areas. In such

R A S (RAS 6).F S - V k w (FGSV).

6.

Key Policy Lessons4

Playing on a walking pace street in a village (Unterbachern)outside of Munich, Germany (Source: Igarta)


14/18


cases, the overriding consideration is to fostera safe and pleasant environment whereas theconvenience of the motorist is secondary. 21 Thisprovision provides a strong basis for engineers inU.S. cities to emphasize sojourning on residentialstreets.

Making Active Transportationthe Smarter Choice

T x , , , I

k . I , (w k

) 4 . T

. A ,

, . P w U.S.

w w k

Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,6 E , A A S H w T O (AASHTO) G B k. .

. S P .

T E

. P

k , , w z , k .

I , ,

w k . P w

I , w E

P , k

.

B M M w . I 8, M U w z q

w k w w . S

q M jz ,

z w

A

, I x I w

, I w

k , M

M N .

Traffic diverter in Malmo (Source: Igarta)


15/18


Humane Streets:A Human Scale and Pace

A w D J G , w x

w k - . B ,

w , ,

. I C , I G

, J G A ,w -

A M P . T

, ,

w ,

w k , w .

O U S , w -

x w w w w k . T -

- -w . I E , I

w w w . I ,

w w k - - G , N ,

D k, Sw .

S 973 O C , w , - w

w k w , w N . O

A Metropolis for People: Vision and Goals for Urban Life inCopenhagen 2015. M C . 9.

w D x w k - (5- 5 k / ) w ,

V k B G ( 98 ), Sw ( 994), -

D k ( 978). I I , w k -

j . T

I E

3 k / ( ), w - .

I , I ,w x q ,

Model

StreetsCity

Road

widthStreet Type

Mangstrasse Munich 14 ftVerkehrsberuhigter Bereich

(7 km/h)

Arie deZeeuwstraat

Rotterdam 25 ft Zone 30 (30 km/h)

Jerichausgade Copenhagen 19 ftLege-og opholdsgade

(15 km/h)

Rolfsgatan Malmo 16 ft 30 km/h

Key features of livable streets


16/18


w k w . M . S

w , w

q q k . T q

w w w

w q q

w k

. A , 7 k w

w k . I x

, , .Residential street in Copenhagen (Source: Igarta)


17/18


O w , , w , x .D ,

q -

. N w U.S. - z

. S U.S.

AASHTO G B k

,

.3

W P w

I , k w . P C C w

, C A P P B P , w

. T z

w- w . T -

k

E .A , w w j -

( - ) -

w w , .

M k

, P E , w

. T I M ,R , C , M

3 Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets,6 E , A A S H w T O (AASHTO) G B k. .

x .

M k , , -

. I ,

w k - w

. I U.S. I -

E , w :

E z j

M k w k

R - z -

C

. B z q

, w w ,

w k . L

w .

Conclusion: Translating Lessonsfor Portland and Other U.S. Cities5


18/18

O f f i c e sWashington Berlin Paris Brussels

Belgrade Ankara Bucharest Warsaw

www.gm u .org

Livable Streets Where People Live

Documents

Transcript of Livable Streets Where People Live