Designing and Retrofitting Neighborhoods to Improve Safety Sponsored by the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District Presented by the Local Government Commission Sacramento, CA August 21, 2007 Overview: Linking Air Quality to Neighborhood Safety Paul Zykofsky, AICP Local Government Commission Designing and Retrofitting Neighborhoods to Improve Safety Sacramento, CA July 25, 2007 1
Local Government Commission Nonprofit membership organization based in Sacramento, CA of local government officials elected and staff Founded in 1979 to work on energy issues During 1980s expanded to work on pollution prevention, waste management, hazardous waste 1991: Started working on land use issues The Ahwahnee Principles, 1991 Response to our members concerns over sprawling, poorly planned development in their communities Assembled with assistance from leading architects and planners working on innovative solutions 2
The Ahwahnee Principles, 1991 Revitalize existing parts of our communities through infill development Plan complete and integrated communities with mix of uses Within walking distance of one another Within walking distance of transit stops With a diversity of housing types With a center focus The Ahwahnee Principles for More Livable Communities Embraced by local government officials in California and other states LGC initiated programs on land use and transportation planning 1993 created Center for Livable Communities Partnered with Air Districts since early 1990s Over 200 cities and counties in California adopted all or part into their planning documents Since 2001 have organized National New Partners for Smart Growth Conference 3
Sacramento Ozone Violation History: 1990-2004 80 70 > Federal 1-hr > Federal 8-hr > State 1-hr 60 50 No. of Days 40 30 20 10 0 2004* 2003* 2002* 2001* 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996* 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 * Cool monitor added in 1996; 2001-2004 are Preliminary data Sacramento Region Ozone Trend 8-hour Standard 4
Violation of Federal 8-hour Standard for Ozone Days 250 200 150 100 50 0 3-Year Averages of Days Exceeding Federal 8-Hour Ozone Standard 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002 South Coast San Joaquin San Diego Sacramento South Central Bay Area Violation of Federal Particulate Matter Standard 3-Year Means of Annual Average PM10 ug/m3 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1992 1997 2002 South Coast San Joaquin San Diego Sacramento South Central Bay Area 5
Sacramento Region: 2005 Ozone-precursor emissions inventory Mobile sources account for 78% of ozone precursors ROG: 70% 41% On-road 29% Off-road NOx: 89% 54% On-road 35% Off-road Sacramento Region: 2002 VOC Emissions Inventory Sacramento Nonattainment Region 168 Tons Per Day Other Mobile 29% Other 6% Off-Road Equipment 8% Rec Boat 15% Solvent/ Coatings 5% Other 6% Stationary 11% Consumer Products 9% Arch Coatings 5% Other 5% Area- Wide 19% Other 7% Auto/Light-Med Duty Trucks 34% On-Road Mobile 41% 6
Sacramento Region: 2002 NOx Emissions Inventory Sacramento Nonattainment Region 176 Tons Per Day Other Mobile 35% Farm Equipment 7% Trains 7% Construction & Mining Equip 9% Other 11% Stationary 9% Boilers/ Heaters/ Ag Pumps 9% Heavy Duty Diesel Trucks 23% Area-Wide 2% Residential Fuel Comb. & Ag. Burn Other 5% Automobiles 12% Lt/Med Duty Trucks 15% On-Road Mobile 54% U.S. Population Growth and Transportation 1970-2000 142% 38% Population Growth Vehicle Miles Traveled 7
California Population Growth and Transportation 1970-2000 162% 70% Population Growth Vehicle Miles Traveled 8
89% 89% 86% 81% 71% Projected VMT Growth 1996-2030 116% 122% 125% 127% Placer Sacramento El Dorado Sutter Yuba Yolo Contra Costa Riverside Los Angeles Source: U.S. EPA, VMT Growth Factors, www.epa.gov/ttn/naaqs/ozone/areas/vmt/vmtcagf.htm 9
Projected Population Growth Rate of Selected States (1995-2025) Rest of U.S. Colorado Oregon Washington Texas Florida Utah Nevada Arizona New Mexico California 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Source: U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Census Bureau Population Growth in the Sacramento Region Population in 6-county region expected to double by 2050 One million new jobs 840,000 new dwelling units 2000 1.9 million 2050 3.8 million 10
Sacramento Blueprint Process Base Case Sacramento Region Projected land consumption by 2050 under basecase scenario Consume 661 additional square miles over the next 50 years Would require, on average, that each household travel 47.2 miles by motor vehicle every day Sacramento Area Council of Governments Sacramento Blueprint Process Preferred Sacramento Region Projected land consumption by 2050 under preferred Blueprint scenario Would consume less than half amount of land, 304 square miles Would reduce daily vehicle miles traveled per household to 34.9 miles, a 26% reduction Sacramento Area Council of Governments 11
The Challenge Retrofit and Design Neighborhoods to Lower Trips and Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) How Smart Growth can help Changes to Land Use pattern Reduction in trips and VMT as result of 4Ds: Density = Compact Development Diversity = Land Use Mix Design = Site Design, Street Design Destination = Accessibility/Street Network Connectivity Emphasis on creating walkable, bicycle- and transit-friendly neighborhoods Emphasis on placemaking creating great community gathering places, increase sense of community Smart Growth concepts help achieve security/safety goals Walkable, mixed-use, transit friendly neighborhoods have more eyes-onthe-street, natural surveillance, self-policing Slower, safer streets result in fewer motor vehicle crashes Well-connected street networks (and lanes/alleys) provide greater access to all parts of a community 12
Smart Growth concepts might conflict with security/safety goals Concern that alleys/trail connectors might allow criminal activity, impede police access Concern that narrower, slower streets might restrict emergency response Access for fire trucks Room for setting up fire trucks, especially ladder trucks Economic Benefits of Smart Growth Just as companies now compete on quality, communities will too. Collaborative Economics, Linking the New Economy to the Livable Community Livability isn t some middle class luxury. It is an economic imperative. Robert Solow, Nobel Prize-winning Economist 13
Principles of Smart Growth/ Livable Communities Ten Principles of Smart Growth Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty and Critical Environmental Areas Strengthen and Direct Development Towards Existing Communities Take Advantage of Compact Building Design Mix Land Uses Create Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices Create Walkable Neighborhoods Foster Distinctive, Attractive Communities with a Strong Sense of Place Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair and Cost Effective 14
2. Strengthen, and direct development towards, existing communities Use incentives to achieve clean-up and reuse of brownfield and grayfield sites Preserve and repair historic buildings as part of redevelopment plans Build on the resources and amenities of existing communities Impacts of Infill vs. Greenfield Development in the San Diego Region VMT/capita 52% Auto travel time 51% Congestion 24% NOx emissions 58% CO2 emissions 55% Infrastructure costs 10% Household travel costs 58% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Infill Greenfield Source: Study by Criterion Planners/Engineers for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1998 15
Commercial Strips The Next Frontier ULI s Principles to Reinvent Suburban Strips Ignite Leadership/Nurture Partnership Anticipate Evolution Know The Market Prune Back Retail-Zoned Land Establish Pulse Nodes of Development Tame the Traffic Create the Place Diversify the Character Eradicate the Ugliness Put Your Money (and Regulations) Where Your Policy Is Revitalizing Suburban Strips Intensify Development at Nodes Prune Back Retail Create the Place 16
Revitalizing Old Shopping Centers Intensify development Fill in parking lots Build structured parking Complete street wall Support pedestrian activity 3. Mix land uses Provide retail or personal services near housing Incorporate parks, schools, and other public facilities 17
Alternative Patterns of Development Traditional Conventional Housing over retail shops Sacramento, CA 18
Land Use Mix Example Housing over restaurant Davis, CA Land Use Mix Example 19
4. Take advantage of compact building design Grow vertically rather than horizontally to preserve green spaces and reduce cost of providing public facilities and services Land Use Pattern Affects Travel Density to Support Transit For Light Rail Service 18-25 units/acre in urban area For Bus Service 7 units/ acre (every 30 minutes) 20
Land Use Pattern Affects Travel Density to Support Retail For a 10,000 sq.ft. Convenience Store 7 units/acre For a 25,000 sq.ft. Small Supermarket 18 units/acre Lower Cost of Infrastructure Compact vs. Low Density Development Land Consumption Cost for Roads Cost for Utilities Cost for Schools Other Costs 45% more* 25% more** 15% more** 5% more** 2% more** *Duncan, James et al, The Search for Efficient Urban Growth Patterns. Florida Department of Community Affairs, 1989. **Burchell, Robert, Economic and Fiscal Impacts of Alternative Land Use Patterns, Rutgers University, 1996. 21
Compact vs. Low Density Development American Farmland Trust Study of Growth in California s Central Valley 1995-2040 Low Density Development Scenario (3 units/acre) Compact vs. Low Density Development 22
vs. More Compact Development Scenario (6 units/acre) Compact vs. Low Density Development Compact vs. Low Density Development $6,000 Projected Loss of Agricultural Sales in 2040 (Millions of 1993 dollars) Cumulative loss (1995-2040): $72 billion $5,266 $4,000 $2,000 $2,448 Low Density Compact Growth $0 Source: American Farmland Trust, Alternatives for Future Urban Growth in California s Central Valley: The Bottom Line for Agriculture and Taxpayers. October 1995. 23
Compact vs. Low Density Development City Revenues/Public Service Costs in 2040 (Millions of 1993 dollars) Cumulative loss (1995-2040): $29 billion $500 $217 $0 -$500 Low Density Compact Growth -$1,000 -$985 Source: American Farmland Trust, Alternatives for Future Urban Growth in California s Central Valley: The Bottom Line for Agriculture and Taxpayers. October 1995. Compact vs. Low Density Development San Diego County Projected land consumption by 2020 under existing policies San Diego Association of Governments 24
Compact vs. Low Density Development San Diego County Projected land consumption by 2020 under Smart Growth, transit-oriented scenario San Diego Association of Governments Compact vs. Low Density Development San Diego County Area covered by Paradise and Cedar fires, October 2003 San Diego State University, http://map.sdsu.edu/website/fire2003d/viewer.htm 25
Demographic Changes California Population Change by Age Group 1990-2040 20-34 35-49 0-19 50-64 65+ 0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% Source: California Dept. of Finance In 1991 there were 31.8 million people over the age of 65 in the U.S. By 2030 that number will increase to 66 million. Increase in Elderly Population 26
Changing Housing Preferences Percent Calling Factor Very Important if Buying a Home Today 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 Crime Rate School District Highway Access Source: Dowell Myers USC School of Policy, Planning, and Development 10 0 25-34 35-44 45-54 55+ Age Group Location to Shopping Public Transportation NAHB, 1999 5. Provide housing opportunities and choices Provide quality housing for people of all income levels, household sizes, and stages in the life cycle. 27
Mixed Income Housing San Mateo, CA Mixed Income Housing Redwood City, CA 28
Single-family homes with accessory units Brea, CA Mixed housing types Doe Mill, Chico, CA 29
Doe Mill Fourplex 6. Provide a variety of transportation choices Coordinate land use and transportation investment Increase highquality transit service Connect pedestrian, bike, transit, and road facilities 30
Transit-Oriented Development San Diego, CA Portland Streetcar 31
Portland Bus Mall Bicycling for transportation 32
Davis Bike Trail 7. Create walkable communities Mix land uses, build compactly, and provide safe and inviting pedestrian corridors 33
Street Design Influences trip choices Safe, quiet, slow, shaded streets encourage people to walk, ride bicycle or take transit instead of driving a car Conventional Pattern of Development 34
Trip Assignment: Conventional Traditional Pattern of Development 35
Trip Assignment: Traditional Traditional vs. Conventional Central Business Districts at the same scale Great Streets, Allen Jacobs Savannah, Georgia Great Streets, Allen Jacobs Irvine, California 36
The Power of Connected Streets Destination Origin How do we get from here to there? The Power of Connected Streets Destination Origin How do we get from here to there? 37
The Power of Connected Streets Destination Origin How do we get from here to there? The Power of Connected Streets Destination Origin 1 Possible Route 38
The Power of Connected Streets Destination Origin Add a second pair of streets to the network, and The Power of Connected Streets Destination Origin 2 Possible Routes 39
The Power of Connected Streets x= 2 Destination y= 2 Origin Add another street in each direction More Possible Routes: 6 in all, without doubling back The Power of Connected Streets (x+y)! (x!)(y!) = # of possible routes The Casey Hawthorne Traffic Routes Equation (only accounts for one direction) 40
The Power of Connected Streets x= 3 Destination y= 4 Origin Continue enhancing the network: 4 x 3 grid yields 35 routes The Power of Connected Streets x= 5 Destination y= 4 Origin Continue enhancing the network: 5 x 4 grid yields 126 routes 41
The Power of Connected Streets Make a town, not pods. 8 x 8 grid yields 12,870 routes Courtesy: Vince Graham Principles of Safe, Walkable Streets Streets designed for people, not just cars Friendly to cars, pedestrians and cyclists 42
Principles of Safe, Walkable Streets Streets designed so drivers feel comfortable at slow speeds 15-25 mph on neighborhood streets 25-35 mph on avenues and boulevards Principles of Healthy Streets Slow streets are safer streets What happens when a driver slams on the brakes? 40 mph 313 30 mph 196 15 mph 73 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Stopping distance (in feet) 43
Principles of Healthy Streets Slow streets are safer streets What happens when a vehicle hits a pedestrian 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 83.0% 37.0% 3.5% 15 mph 31 mph 44 mph Probability of Fatal Injury Principles of Safe, Walkable Streets Narrower streets are slower and safer Longmont, CO study of 20,000 accidents Found street width had the greatest relationship to injury accidents Accidents/mile/year were higher on wider streets 40-foot wide street 36-foot wide street 24-foot wide street 2.23 a/m/y 1.21 a/m/y 0.32 a/m/y Source: Residential Street Typology and Injury Accident Frequency, Swift and Associates, Longmont, CO, 1997 44
Principles of Healthy Streets Speeds on narrower streets are slower Speeds on streets with less width between buildings are slower 1981 Study of San Francisco Streets by Donald Appleyard Source: D.T. Smith and D. Appleyard, Improving the Residential Street Environment Final Report, FHWA, Washington, DC, 1981 Safe Streets Need Good Sidewalks Detached from curb At least 5 feet wide Planting strip helps shade street and sidewalk 45
Safe Streets Need Good Sidewalks The Burden of Physical Inactivity The Problem 27% of adults are sedentary 61% of adults are overweight 1 in 4 adults is obese The Outcome Obesity, Cardiovascular Disease, Cancer, Diabetes Physical inactivity is a primary factor in over 250,000 deaths annually. Medical costs associated with physical inactivity and its consequences may exceed $120 billion annually. Data Sources: 2000 BRFSS, 1999 NHANES, Powell 1994, Pratt et. al. 2000 46
Physical Inactivity and Overweight Trends Among Youth 1 in 7 youth ages 6 19 is overweight Children spend more time watching television in a year than they do attending school The Disappearing Walk to School 1 in 4 trips made by 5-15 year olds are for the journey to and from school. Only 10% of these trips are made by walking and bicycling. Of school trips one mile or less, about 28% are walk-based and less than 1% are bike-based. 47
US Health Care Expenditures as Percent of GDP Projections 12.1 14.1 14.9 16.0 5.1 7.0 8.8 1960 1970 1980 1990 2001 2006 2014 Year Heffler et al. U.S. Health Spending Projections for 2004-2014. Health Tracking, February 23, 2005 Traffic Safety 48
Car Crashes Leading cause of deaths among persons 1-34 years old Each year in the United States, motor vehicle crashes account for approximately: 43,000 deaths 2004: 42,636 2005: 43,443 2.6 million nonfatal injuries 2004: 2.59 million 2005: 2.69 million 1 person dies in a motor crash every 12 minutes estimated $200 billion in costs Source: NHTSA For every age group from 3 through 33 crashes were the #1 cause of death 49
Automobile fatality rates by city, 2004 (excluding pedestrian fatalities; deaths/100,000/year) 5.44 Portland 5.94 Sacramento 2.96 San Francisco 10.52 10.58 Phoenix 11.33 10.33 Dallas 9.80 7.95 Houston 13.12 12.88 Atlanta 14.1 Orlando 1.78 New York 5.58 Philadelphia Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts 2004 Pedestrian fatality rates by city, 2004 (deaths/100,000/year) 1.69 Portland 2.20 Sacramento 2.55 San Francisco 10.52 2.89 Phoenix 11.33 4.46 Dallas 9.80 2.14 Houston 13.12 3.82 Atlanta 2.92 Orlando 1.83 New York 2.65 Philadelphia Source: NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts 2004 50
Pedestrian Danger Index Fatality rate (per 100k people) % of people walking to work Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP), Mean Streets 2004 Report Pedestrian Danger Index, 2002-2003 Fatality rate (per 100k people) as % of people walking to work 43.0 Portland 95.9 Sacramento 49.4 San Francisco 10.52 117.2 Phoenix 11.33 103.7 Dallas 9.80 121.9 Houston 13.12 144.4 Atlanta 243.6 Orlando 33.4 New York 48.3 Philadelphia Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP), Mean Streets 2004 Report 51
Pedestrians Safety and Investment 35% of all Traffic Deaths in Cities Larger than One Million Federal Funds for Pedestrian Safety <0.9% of Transportation Budget Pedestrian Danger Index The most dangerous metropolitan areas to walk in tend to be newer, sprawling, southern and western communities, where vast distances make walking impractical, and where transportation systems are designed for motor vehicle travel at the expense of other transportation options. Surface Transportation Policy Project Mean Streets 1997 report The PDI shows that the most dangerous places to walk are metropolitan areas marked by newer, low-density developments, where wide, high-speed arterial streets offer few sidewalks or crosswalks. Surface Transportation Policy Project Mean Streets 2004 report 52
Safety and Community Design Pedestrian Fatalities 18% 11% More than half of the pedestrian fatalities occurred on minor arterials and local roads 15% 6% 28% Interstate Freeway/Expressway Primary Artery Minor Arteries Collector Roads Local roads 22% Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP), Mean Streets 1997 Report 53
54
55
56
For more information Web: www.lgc.org Phone: 800-290-8202 Phone: 916-448-1198 e-mail: center@lgc.org New Partners for Smart Growth Conference Washington, DC February 7-9, 2008 www.newpartners.org 57