Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
#16 New Challenges, Tools, and Opportunities in Planning for Healthy Transportation - Nelson
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×

Saving this for later?

Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime - even offline.

Text the download link to your phone

Standard text messaging rates apply

#16 New Challenges, Tools, and Opportunities in Planning for Healthy Transportation - Nelson

460
views

Published on


0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
460
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. New Challenges, Tools, and Opportunities inPlanning for Healthy TransportationJeremy Nelson, PrincipalNelsonNygaard Consulting AssociatesPro Walk / Pro Bike / Pro Place ConferenceLong Beach | 9/11/2012 1
  • 2. Image source: Jan Gehl Image source Jan Gehl
  • 3. Image source: Texas Transportation Institute, Urban Mobility Report, 2011
  • 4. Image source: www.vtpi.org/future.pdf
  • 5. Image source: US Bureau of Strategic Economics
  • 6. Source: Center for Disease Control, 2010
  • 7. Excerpted from Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits, by Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, for The American Public Transportation Association,June 2010.
  • 8. Excerpted from Evaluating Public Transportation Health Benefits, by Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, for The American Public Transportation Association, June2010.
  • 9. January  22,  2010  Costs of Pedestrian-Vehicle Collisions(San Francisco, 2004-2008)  Total  Cost     Collision  Year   2008  Popula7on    Cost  Per  Capita   (2008  Dollars)   2004   $11,257,143     840,462   $13.39     2005   $13,480,653     840,462   $16.04     2006   $16,574,113     840,462   $19.72     2007   $17,673,297     840,462   $21.03     2008   General Plan Update $15,358,023     840,462   $18.27     Total  Cost  for  5  years   $74,343,229     840,462   $88.46     Total  Cost   Adjusted  for  Infla7on     $171,000,000     (2008  dollars)   Image source: San Francisco Injury Center, 2008
  • 10. Source: Flickr User SFBike
  • 11. Source: Flickr User Theodore Scott
  • 12. Source: Portland Bicycle Plan for 2030
  • 13. January  22,  2010   20 15Relative Risk Index Walking 10 Bicycling General Plan Update 5 0 0% 5% 10% 15% Journey to Work Share Image source: Peter Jacobsen
  • 14. January  22,  2010  General Plan Update Image Source: RFF Press
  • 15. January  22,  2010  For more information… Jeremy Nelson 116 New Montgomery, Suite 500 San Francisco, CA 94103 (415) 284-1544 jnelson@nelsonnygaard.com
  • 16. Health  and  transporta>on  go  together   Jean  S.  Fraser,  Chief   San  Mateo  County  Health  System   Pro  Walk/Pro  Bike:  Pro  Place  2012  
  • 17. Obesity  Trends  Among  U.S.  Adults   1985   No Data <10% 10%–14% *BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs. overweight for 5’ 4” person, BRFSS
  • 18. Obesity  Trends  Among  U.S.  Adults   2009   <10% 10%–14% 15%–19% 20%–24% 25%–29% ≥30% *BMI ≥30, or ~ 30 lbs. overweight for 5’ 4” person, BRFSS
  • 19. Health  needs  Planning  and  vice   versa   60% of what constitutes health is about environments“The  public  health  approach  to  elimina2ng  health  dispari2es”;  Satcher,  D.2008.  
  • 20. What  can  Health  bring  to  the     Planning  table?      Posi7ve  framing  Data  about  effects  on  people  New  advocates  
  • 21. Where  do  you  find  allies  in  your     Health  Department?    Injury  Preven7on  Epidemiology  Chronic  Disease  Preven7on  Policy  and  Planning    Wellness  Health  Equity  
  • 22. Louisville,  KY:  Department  of   Public  Health  and  Wellness    Center  for  Health  Equity   Ø  Community  engagement   Ø  Investment  in  place    Chronic  Disease  Preven>on:  Healthy  HomeTown  Ini>a>ve   Ø  Community  grants  for  home  town  preven>on   work   Ø  Health  staff  dedicated  to  this  work      
  • 23. Somerville,  MA:  City  Health   Department    Shape  Up  Somerville   Ø  Community  Transforma>on  Grant   Recipient     Ø  Somerville  Cares  about  Preven>on   Program;  Preven>on  Director  and  Staff     Ø  SomerStreets  
  • 24. We  are  happy  to  help  you  Ac>ve  transporta>on  work  for  San  Mateo  County  is  taking  place  as  Get  Healthy  San  Mateo  County    We  have  developed  and  collected  many  resources  that  you  can  find  at    www.gethealthysmc.org              stay  up  to  date      facebook.com/GetHealthySMC  
  • 25. Image source: Jan Gehl Image source Jan Gehl
  • 26. New Challenges, Tools, and Opportunities in Planning for Healthy Transportation A New Generation ofSidewalk Profilers & GIS-based Planning Tools to Implement Infrastructure Improvements Sally Swanson Architects, Inc. (SSA) 220 Sansome Street, Suite 1100, San Francisco, CA 94104 P: 415.445.3045 F: 415.445.3055 E: ssa@swanarch.com
  • 27. Challenge: Walkability › Driveability•  Growing emphasis on walkability o  New Urbanism o  Healthy Communities o  Livable Communities o  Complete Streets•  Requires vigilance on maintaining and upgrading our pedestrian infrastructure
  • 28. Sidewalks can be hazardous to your health Aging population: 1 in 5 age 65 & over by 2025 o  Leading cause of death for 65 and over are falls o  Proactive vs. Reactive o  Paratransit services at capacitylists
  • 29.  Traditional Devices for Testing Sidewalk Surfaces •  Using a Smart level or inclinometer is a laborious process •  The Ninth Circuit ruled that sidewalks Level Measurement Devices   are a program under the ADA •  Sampling and Extrapolating •  Addressing trip hazards through a maintenance program
  • 30. Solution: Sidewalk Surface Profiling DevicesWalking Profiler Sidewalk Attributes Measured •  Ride Quality (Longitudinal Level) ◦  International Roughness Index ◦  Profile Ride Index ◦  Localized Roughness (bumps/ dips) •  Grade ◦  Running grade ◦  Maximum grade change (subject to ability to traverse surface) •  Cross-Slope
  • 31. Inventory Sidewalks: Barriers/Hazards•  100% Sampling•  Surface Profiling System collects Surface Data – slopes, level changes, gaps, etc.•  Minimal Input by Operator Federal Highway Administration. Bellevue ADA Transition Plan implemented by Transportation Dept.
  • 32. Inventory Sidewalks: Barriers/Hazards
(short video clip)
  • 33. Sidewalk Inventory of ADA Barriersusing Surface Profiling Technology
  • 34. Managing Your Inventory Data Vs.
  • 35. GIS-based Prioritization ToolsPrioritizing Barriers to Fit Your Budget•  Severity levels of barriers•  Demographics•  Location•  Frequency of use
  • 36. ADA VIEWER- Activity Score
  • 37. Browser-based GIS-viewerGIS data and GIS-viewer•  GIS: The raw GIS data allows •  GIS-Viewer: allows access to for in-depth organization and simplified version of data in an querying of the data. This is accessible and easy to use done with software such as format (Non-technical). Esri’s ArcGIS Software (Technical).
  • 38. Browser-based GIS-viewer
  • 39. ADA VIEWER- Curb Ramp & Pedestrian Signals
  • 40. Reduce Trip and Fall HazardsProactive with Detailed Data•  Identify high severity barriers•  Reducing the potential for falls and accidents.•  Easily Update or check-off items when corrected
  • 41. ADA VIEWER- Mid-blocks & Street view integration
  • 42. Documentation •  Demonstrate good faith effort (reduces legal exposure) •  Address deficiencies in planning stage and not mid-project   •  Documentation of ‘improvements’ for litigation  
  • 43. Case Study: City of Clovis, CAScope: 638 linear miles of sidewalkArea: 23 sq. milesPopulation: approx. 95,000Status: 2010-2012Solutions and Benefits: Court-mandated Timeline•  The City of Clovis, under a consent decree, was required to prepare a revised ADA Transition Plan to include its pedestrian facilities within public rights-of-way.•  The City evaluated its baseline condition for sidewalks and curb ramps. Using a profiler allowed the City to fast-track their project.
  • 44. Case Study: City of San Marcos, CA Scope: 210 linear miles of sidewalk Area: 24.3 sq. miles Population: approx. 85,000 Status: Completed 2012Solutions and Benefits: Budget Savings and Planning Tool•  After evaluating several technologies, City chose a sidewalk profiling system sponsored by FHWA to develop a comprehensive inventory of sidewalks, curb ramps and other pedestrian infrastructure.•  Survey data was integrated into GIS for the City’s engineering department to use as a planning and scoping tool.
  • 45. Case Study: County of St. Louis, MO Scope: 810 linear miles of sidewalk Area: 524 sq. miles Population: approx. 992,000 Status: 2011-2013 Solutions and Benefits: Large Inventory•  County staff were trained to perform field inventory of barriers using surface profilers and handheld data collectors•  This data is integrated into and analyzed in the County’s existing GIS to determine an overall implementation schedule
  • 46. Cost Savings•  Scope a specific project area o  Sychronize with Capital Improvement Projects•  Reduce costs for paratransit services o  Identify and prioritize those sidewalks that connect paratransit riders to fixed route services•  Generate work orders o  Maintenance work orders - Trip and fall hazards - Tree trimming
  • 47. Pooling Resources •  Barrier mitigation, planning and prioritization at the Metropolitan scale •  Savings together with Cities and Counties pooling resources to inventory barriers and maintaining GIS-based Planning tools
  • 48. Image source: Jan Gehl Image source Jan Gehl
  • 49. SFMTA | Municipal Transportation Agency Image: a bus in front of the Palace of the Legion of honor PLANNING FOR WALKING AND BIKING IN A TRANSIT-FIRST CITY: Regional Bike Sharing and Pedestrian Action Planning 09 | 10 | 2012 | LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA
  • 50. 57
  • 51. SF: 13% CommuteWalk & Bike Trips 58
  • 52. San Francisco % of Commuters 8% 4% 34% 54%Image Source: Thunderhead Alliance 59
  • 53. Changes in Mode Share in SFSource: SFMTAUS Census AmericanCommunity Survey 60
  • 54. SFMTA LIVABLE STREETS BICYCLE – PEDESTRIAN – TRAFFIC CALMINGLivable Streets Vision San Francisco is the North American leader in providing safe, attractive streets and sidewalks; a place where everyone chooses to walk and bike for most non-transit travel.Livable Streets Mission Create safe and inviting streets and sidewalks for all who walk and use a bicycle. 61
  • 55. 62
  • 56. 63
  • 57. Project Lead:Bay Area Air QualityManagement District(BAAQMD)Partner Agencies:•  SFMTA•  VTA•  CalTrain•  City of Redwood City•  County of San Mateo 64
  • 58. RegionalBicycle Sharing Pilot•  1,000 bicycles•  100 stations: –  San Francisco (50) –  Redwood City (10) –  South Bay (40) •  Palo Alto •  Mountain View •  San Jose –  2013 Launch 65
  • 59. Planning for Stations: Service Area •  1.78 sq mi. •  Dense •  Mixed Use •  Transit Rich •  Flat •  Bikeable 66
  • 60. San Francisco Suitability Analysis Raster-based GIS overlay using 11 factors:1.  Retail Job Density 7.  Bicycle Commuters/2.  Population Density Square Mile3.  Employment Density 8.  Bicycle Infrastructure4.  Zoning 9.  Transit5.  Slope 10. Tourist Sites6.  Pedestrian Commuters 11. Per Capita Income per Square Mile 67
  • 61. Citywide Bicycle Sharing Suitability 68
  • 62. Citywide Bicycle Sharing Suitability 69
  • 63. SuitabilityTransit Transit Factor: 70
  • 64. Suitability Factor: Employment 71
  • 65. SuitabilitySlope Factor: Slope 72
  • 66. Guiding Principle: Key to Success = Station Density“The number one indicator of success is densityof stations. You dont want to have stations morethan a couple blocks away from each other. Inthe off-chance, hopefully, that someoneencounters a completely full or empty station,they dont have to walk far to a station that doeshave capacity or bicycles.”Alison Cohen, President, Alta Bike Share 73
  • 67. Station Spacing•  Paris Benchmark: 300 meter grid•  1 station every 2-3.5 blocks•  28 stations per sq. mile•  50 stations•  50 ÷ 28 = 1.75 sq. mile service area 74
  • 68. Locations UnderConsideration (61) 75
  • 69. 76
  • 70. 2010 Mayoral Pedestrian Safety Directive•  Interagency Ped Safety Taskforce targeting: –  By 2016: 25% reduction in serious/fatal ped injuries –  By 2021: 50% reduction –  Reduce geographic safety inequities –  Increase walking•  Near Term Actions•  Pedestrian Action Plan 77
  • 71. Injury Collisions Involving Pedestrians 1999-2011 1000 900 800 700Pedestrian Collisions 600 500 400 300 200 100 (prelim.) Source: CHP, Statewide Traffic Records System (SWITRS) 0 and San Francisco Police Department 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Year 78
  • 72. Serious/Fatal Injury Reduction Targets Source: CHP, SWITRS 79
  • 73. WALK FIRST PRELIMINARY CAPITAL IMPROVMENTS LIST 80
  • 74. PEDESRTRIAN ACTIVITY 81
  • 75. WALKING STREETS & AREAS 82
  • 76. HIGH PEDESTRIAN INJURY 83
  • 77. HIG PRIORITY SEGMENTS 84
  • 78. WALK FIRST PRELIMINARY CAPITAL IMPROVMENTS LIST 85
  • 79. WALK FIRST PRELIMINARY CAPITAL IMPROVMENTS LIST` 86
  • 80. Thanks!heath.maddox@sfmta.com 415.701.4605 87
  • 81. Image source: Jan Gehl Image source Jan Gehl
  • 82. Key Funding Sources for Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements•  Public: Federal, State, Regional, Local•  Private: Non-profit organizations, property and business owners and private developers
  • 83. Key Federal Source US Dept. of Transportation•  National Highway System- bicycle and pedestrian walkways adjacent to highways•  Surface Transportation Program TEAs –  10% set-aside for Transportation Enhancement Activities (TEAs) –  10% set-aside for Hazard Elimination and Railway-Highway Crossing programs 90
  • 84. Federal Funding For Pedestrian and Bicycle Programs in CaliforniaYear   Annual  Funding  2007   $53.8  million  2008   $64.5  million  2009   $137.3  million  2010   $72.6  million  2011   $45.0  million   Source: FHWA Fiscal Management Information System 91
  • 85. Key State Sources•  TDA Local Transportation Fund•  Bicycle Transportation Account•  California Safe Routes to School•  Prop 84 Statewide Park and Urban Greening•  California Disabled Rights Settlement ($1 billion over 30 years)
  • 86. Regional and Local Government•  Taxes: Property Tax Increment, Sales, Hotel•  Revenues: Bridge tolls, Parking meter revenues•  Impact Fees: Transportation/Transit, Parks/Open Space•  Tax exempt financing vehicles: GO Bonds, Assessment Districts (BIDs, PBIDs), Mello Roos Community Facilities Districts (CFDs), Infrastructure Financing Districts
  • 87. Transbay Transit Center, San Francisco•  Intermodal Transit Center is•  5.4 acre urban park on roof•  Centerpiece of new downtown neighborhood•  Extensive pedestrian and bicycle improvements to create walkable, bikable and transit friendly neighborhood 94
  • 88. Transit Center Rooftop Park 95
  • 89. Key Transbay Funding Sources for Transit and Neighborhood Improvements•  Federal: Transit grant and loan funding (TIFIA), rental operating funds, tax exempt bond debt•  State: Former highway land, State voter- approved bonds, tax exempt bond debt•  Local/Regional: Agency land, sales tax, bridge tolls, property tax increment, impact, Mello-Roos CFD•  Private: Developer contributions to streetscape improvements, payment of CFD special taxes, foundation grants
  • 90. San Francisco Major TOD/Sustainable Projects Treasure Island 97
  • 91. Local Government Catalysts•  Street, bicycle and pedestrian master plans•  Local land use plans•  Special programs –  Sunday Streets –  Safe Streets –  Livable Streets•  Expedited processing with development requirements•  Repurpose surplus land
  • 92. Better Streets Plan “A Better Street attends to the needs of people first, considering pedestrians, bicyclists, transit, street trees, stormwater management, utilities, and livability as well as vehicular circulation and parking.”
  • 93. North Beach Parklet atTony Gemignani’s Pizza NapoletanaTony commissionedRebar Group todesign this parkletfabricated fromgalvanized steelclad with bamboodecking. Photos from www.rebargroup.com 100
  • 94. Mint Plaza, San Francisco•  Mint Plaza converted a former City street, Jesse Street, to a 24/7 public plaza•  Street and sidewalks replaced with a new Key Features •  Arbor with climbing vines, pedestrian surface •  trees and several rain gardens Runoff feeds two rain gardens •  Restaurants and cafes ring the plaza
  • 95. Mint PlazaMartin Building Company donated the finished Plazaimprovements to San Francisco. The City conditioned itsacceptance with requirement that Friends of Mint Plaza (FoMP),a non-profit organization, assume full responsibility for the costsof all future maintenance and repair of the Plaza area.
  • 96. Proposed Broadening of SF’s Transit Impact Fees•  Current Transit Impact Development Fee (TIDF) –  Fees range from about $9 to $12 per SF of new non-residential development –  Funds support new transit facilities and operations•  Proposed Transportation Sustainability Program –  Would include residential development –  Focused on improved transit service and access, including funds for pedestrian and bike improvements 103
  • 97. `` 104
  • 98. RESOURCES Life is like riding a bicycle. To keep your balance, you must keep moving. Albert Einstein 105
  • 99. Image source: Jan Gehl Image source Jan Gehl