Open Streets Initiatives in the West: Evaluation & Recommendations

Open Streets Initiatives in the West: Evaluation & Recommendations 2021 Professional Project Jake Gallaher Advisor: Alessandro Rigolon 1 Introduction In the United States, most of our streets are designed for vehicle use with little regard to other modes of travel. Those walking, cycling, running, or simply looking for space to gather are often excluded from these vast public spaces within our cities. This is problematic from several standpoints, including equity, accessibility, and climate (Cervero et al., 2017). The way Americans have embraced car culture limits these spaces to those who can afford a vehicle and those who are physically capable of driving one. Open Streets initiatives involve closing segments of city streets to car traffic to allow walkers, bikers, and joggers the freedom of having a safe, communal space to interact with their community. These initiatives have been implemented more widely in Europe and in isolated occasions here in the U.S. Primarily, they have been used here as biking events or in commercial districts to encourage the support of local businesses (Rodriguez, 2011). However, Open Streets initiatives have increased in popularity in this country as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic and the need for increased socially distant space to remain physically active. This report examines four cities in the western United States that implemented Open Streets programs as a response to the COVID-19 global pandemic. Their programs were evaluated based on four different criteria: community engagement, population access, distribution among socioeconomic classes, and access to services and parkland. Interviews were conducted with local planners in each city to gain supplemental insight to the innerworkings of each program. Each city intends to apply the lessons learned from these programs to improve transportation within their communities. Literature Review Open Streets are about more than just closing streets off to cars to increase space for bikers, joggers, and walkers. Open Streets increase the public space of the city, enabling all within the community to engage with one another while increasing accessibility to physical activity, essential services, and culture while enhancing safety. Perhaps the most evident effect of Open Streets is the impact it can have on public health. Open Streets provide a safe place to walk, jog, and bike. It also can increase recreational space in the city by providing temporary or atypical parks. Higher-income neighborhoods typically have better access to safe public spaces than lower-income neighborhoods (Rigolon, 2016). Open Streets can help bridge this gap. Cities are often limited in their ability to add additional parkland and other recreational facilities. Open Streets offer a low-cost alternative to traditional parks while still providing similar health benefits (Hipp et al., 2014). Reducing energy consumption and pollution due to increased active transportation is another benefit to Open Streets. Litman states that, “…short urban trips that have high emission rates per mile due to cold starts (engines are inefficient during the first few minutes of operation) and congestion. As a result, each 1% shift from automobile to active travel typically reduces fuel 2 consumption 2-4%” (2020). Open Streets can provide users access to neighborhood businesses, services, and jobs that are within easy reach via active transportation. Providing this type of infrastructure can reduce the amount of vehicle trips and can increase accessibility to those without the means or ability to own and operate a vehicle. This in turn reduces emissions and improves local air quality, raising the level of sustainability. “Many cities connect greenways or parks with Open Streets routes, drawing attention to new bike lanes or providing an opportunity for citizens to get to know their streets and feel safe when walking or cycling for transport” (Hipp et al., 2014 p.S114). These initiatives increase mobility and access and allow residents to feel safe to enjoy their city outside of the automobile. Open Streets can take on several forms. Play Streets, which have been used in New York City provide children a safe place to place without the danger of cars driving through the street (Molina, 2020). Ciclovia’s are biking events in which cities close streets to allow cyclists (Torres et al., 2013). Many cities have also instituted temporary downtown closures of streets to encourage shopping, dining, and entertainment. 3 Case Cities The four case cities were chosen to be studied as they had all implemented Open Streets as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic, are situated in the Western United States, and have a population of under a million people in the city proper. Each city has also experienced population growth in the past 10 years and demonstrate a desire to expand on transportation opportunities. Denver The city of Denver launched their Shared Streets initiative in response to CDC guidelines needing six feet of space between persons during the COVID-19 global pandemic. The Shared Streets program implemented soft closures of streets to discourage through traffic to allow for increased safety for those walking and biking in the street. Temporary barricades began popping up in the city in April 2020 and were the primary indicator of shared streets. This pilot program is expected to last through winter 2021 and information learned will be incorporated into the larger eDEN (ecodesign Denver) project. This larger project aims to establish a system of shared streets within one mile of ever Denver resident. The project will connect neighborhoods to greenspace, outdoor dining areas and public art. Tucson The Tucson Slow Streets program was also implemented as a response to the COVID-19 global pandemic in an effort to increase socially distanced space to remain physically active. The city has defined that the ideal slow street is a neighborhood street that has safe crossings and is not used by transit services. Tucson has also made serving underserved neighborhoods within their city a priority. After the first two months of the project, the city received a grant that enabled them to expand their community engagement approach to continue the planning process. The results of this project will then be used to determine areas for traffic calming projects and connections to bike boulevards. This initiative was only intended to be used during the Stay Safe, Stay Home directive which has expired at the time of this writing. Salt Lake City In April 2020, Salt Lake City began their Stay Safe, Stay Active Streets: Response to COVID-19 project. The initial streets were chosen during a week-long online survey in addition to other factors. Much like the other programs, soft closures were employed through the use of temporary barricades and signage. This program was in place until November 2020. The feedback generated through this project will inform the city of potential areas for traffic calming and active transportation measures. 4 The staff continually monitored the progression of the pandemic and determined that the program would not be re-instated in the year 2021. Seattle Seattle launched the Stay Healthy Streets to give people adequate space for physical activity by limiting streets to local traffic. The city began by using their 45-mile Neighborhood Greenway, a system of streets with improved safety measures and low speeds, to select candidates to be upgraded to a softly closed Stay Healthy Street. In total, over 20 miles of city streets are now a part of the Stay Healthy Streets program. The city has already committed that some of these streets will become permanent closures to ensure people can bike and walk throughout their community. The city has been successful in making some of the segments permanent and continues to work to add to the overall number of permanent closures. 5 Methodology Each city’s initiative was researched and an interview with a city official who worked on their program was conducted to provide supplemental information. Interviews were conducted via Zoom by myself, or Dani Slabaugh (University of Colorado Denver) as part of the larger Open streets, for whom? COVID-19 response, active living, and equity project. Interviews about Salt Lake City and Tucson’s programs were conducted by me, whereas Dani interviewed for Denver and Seattle’s programs. Questions asked regarded criteria used, equity, community engagement, community response, and the impetus for starting the project. Each program was given a score of one to three across four different criteria: community engagement, population access, distribution among socioeconomic classes, and access to services and parkland. A score of one indicates low achievement whereas a score of three indicates high achievement. The highest possible score is 12. Figure 9 below at the end of the evaluation section shows the final scoring matrix. Criteria 1: Community Engagement Open streets are meant to serve the community, and as such residents should be included in the discussions of where, when, and how to create open streets in their neighborhoods. Meeting with residents can help identify potential challenges and opportunities that exist within communities. It also provides a chance for individuals to engage in the planning process and thus become a more active member in their community. Community engagement is scored based on a subjective look into their outreach strategies, survey responses, and interviews with local planners. A score of one would indicate no, to very limited, engagement. A score of two would include conducting surveys and collecting feedback to make some modifications. A score of three would indicate that the city utilized residents and their input to shape the outcomes of the project. This would include going beyond standardized surveying and soliciting feedback. A score of three signifies connecting with the community and striving to make the initiative work in the best way for the local community. Criteria 2: Population Access Where to implement these facilities is one of the most important questions to ask when planning for open streets initiatives. Ensuring that many people have access to these facilities will provide an adequate return on investment. For this evaluation, I mapped each city’s open streets in relation to population density. I included a ¼ mile buffer to show the population that was able to be served by the facility within a brief five-minute walk, a representative catchment area. Population access was ultimately determined by the percentage of the population who had relatively easy access to an Open Streets facility. Less than 20 percent of the population earned a one, between 20 and 40 percent earned a two, and if over 40 percent of the city’s population had access, a score of three was given. 6 Criteria 3: Distribution Among Socioeconomic Status While it is important to reach a high number of residents, it is equally important to ensure that various neighborhoods regardless of socioeconomic status are reached as well. Providing equitable access to open streets enables the aforementioned benefits to be shared among the community. Often, these benefits yield a greater impact in underserved neighborhoods. Assessment of this was conducted through mapping and statistical analysis. I mapped each city’s open streets in relation to median household income by census block. These maps show how these initiatives were distributed among income levels throughout the city. The level of distribution among socioeconomic classes was determined by conducting a T-test utilizing the median household income from census data at the block level. I then used the statistical significance to determine if blocks with access to Open Streets had higher income yielding inequity and a score of one, no significant difference in income yielding equality and a score of two, or if blocks with lower income were found to be statistically significant yielding equity and a score of three. Criteria 4: Access to Services and Parkland Open Streets can provide a reliable transportation corridor to connect residents with essential services and established recreation space. Individuals may feel more inclined to access nearby services and amenities if safe accommodations are in place. This initiative can also act as pseudogreenspace in areas where formal parks are difficult to reach. Those without access to a vehicle may be able to meet their needs with this tool that increases accessibility within the city. Access to services and parkland was subjectively measured based on business, service, and parkland access. The number of connections made between existing parks, businesses served, and essential services connected were factored into the final decision of scoring. 7 Evaluation Denver Community Engagement Denver did solicit survey responses for their Shared Streets initiative. However, it was revealed in an interview from a local city planner that, “While they did have that data (from the survey), where residents would like them to be, the city kind of ignored that and just placed them where they thought best. So, they did zero community engagement when they did this process.” Since the city did at least collect some form of community input, a score of one was given. Population Access Most of the open streets were clustered near the core of the city. While this is densest area, large portions of moderately dense neighborhoods were not serviced at all. In Figure 1, you will notice the city center featuring many open streets as well as a couple of streets in eastern Denver. Many neighborhoods in the southern and western parts of the city have virtually no access to the open streets program. Even while serving the denser portions of the city, just 18 percent of Denverites had access to Open Streets facilities, earning the program a score of one. Figure 1: Denver Population Density Distribution Among Socioeconomic Status Figure 2 below shows the income groups near the Shared Streets of Denver. The average income by census block that had access to Open Streets was approximately $65,047 whereas those without access averaged $76,430. A T-test showed that there was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) between census tracts with access that have a lower income. For this reason, equity was achieved yielding a score of three. 8 Figure 2: Denver Income Distribution Access to Services and Parkland Several parks were serviced by the program in Denver. These include Washington, Cheesman, Sloan’s Lake, and George Mason Sr. Parks. A variety of local businesses were also made easily accessible using these open streets especially near the city center. For these reasons, the program earned a score of two. Tucson Community Engagement After the initial phase of the program, the city solicited input from residents on what streets should be included in the second phase of the project. The city then received a grant from PeopleForBikes, a cycling advocacy group, which enabled the city to recruit over 40 ‘block leaders,’ which are community members who act as a liaison between their neighborhood and the city. Some of the block leaders were already a part of their neighborhood organizations and for some of them this was their first time engaging with the city. The grant money was also used to promote free mobile bike repair at select sites within the city. This program was able to provide repair to 150 bikes during the duration of the program. Survey data was also used throughout the Slow Streets program to continuously gain additional feedback from residents. This high level of engagement in addition to traditional outreach measures earned the program a three. 9 Population Access As shown in Figure 3, Tucson geographically spread their Slow Streets program out across their city. While the segments that were opened do a good job of accessing sizeable portions of the city, there are also vast portions of the city that did not experience easy access to the program. It was found that approximately 19 percent of the city’s residents had easy access to the Open Streets. Since less than 20 percent of the total population had access, a score of one was given. Figure 3: Tucson Population Density Distribution Among Socioeconomic Status Tucson’s Slow Streets were spread out across census blocks with a varied range of income. The streets utilized within the project were accessible to many of the city’s diverse populations. In Figure 4, you can see this distribution among income levels. As part of their community engagement strategy, the mobile bike repair program allowed some lower income residents to gain access to biking – which can be cost prohibitive at times. In an interview with a planner from the City of Tucson’s Department of Transportation and Mobility, it was stated that a single mother had said she, “…had been praying for something like this, because she did not have the means, even $20 was too much to get a new tube for her kid’s bike… (this program) has filled such a need.” The spatial distribution combined with outreach efforts alone could earn a high score. Through the T-test analysis, a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) was found lower median income blocks having better access to Open Streets compared to their wealthier counterparts. Census blocks with access averaged a median income of $35,635 whereas blocks without access averaged $45,881. Since equity was achieved the program has earned a score of three. 10 Figure 4: Tucson Income Distribution Access to Services and Parkland Tucson’s program focused heavily on making an impact within neighborhoods. While the program was not focused on connecting residents with essential services and parkland, many neighborhood parks and services were within easy access of many of the Open Streets segments. The overall goal for the city was not aimed at connecting these features so much as it was building community and identifying neighborhoods that will be suitable for low-cost permanent traffic calming measures in the future. The program was given a two in this category. Salt Lake City Community Engagement The primary form of outreach was done via online surveys. The city received over 6,200 respondents to gain a preliminary concept of which corridors residents felt would be most suitable to open. The city had pre-selected the corridors that could serve as an open street. The city had full control of the deciding which streets would be offered to the residents. The method of outreach, although reaching 6,200+ respondents, may not have been accessible to those without reliable computer access or non-English speaking populations. However, due to limited time constraints brought about by a new pandemic the city opted to test the program and solicit feedback. For these reasons, the engagement strategy received a two. 11 Population Access Salt Lake City did a good job of ensuring geographic equity in their program. Figure 5 shows the distribution of open streets in relation to population density. It is clear to see that areas of greater density have been served on all sides of the city. It was found that approximately 44 percent of the city’s inhabitants had easy access to the Open Streets. Since over 40 percent had access, the program received a score of three. Figure 5: Salt Lake City Population Density Distribution Among Socioeconomic Status Figure 6 shows the distribution of open streets in relation to income level by census block. Using this map, the city did attempt to include a variety of income levels within proximity to an open street. The pilot program allocated Slow Streets across the city in an economically balanced way. Census blocks with access to Open Streets had a median household income of $64,737 and blocks without access had an average income of $71,685. The T-test concurred that the street segments were balanced among various income groups throughout the city since there was no significant statistical differences found (p > 0.05). Since the city had achieved equality among socioeconomic classes, the score of two was given. 12 Figure 6: Salt Lake City Income Distribution Access to Services and Parkland The Slow Streets program in Salt Lake City was provided additional connections to Liberty, Poplar Grove, Cottonwood, Stratford, and Hillcrest Parks, as well as Wasatch Hollow Preserve. The corridor opened along 600 East provided easier connections to nearby grocery and retail opportunities. The 900 South Slow Street offered walkable connections to retail and restaurant space along its route. Some of the other routes featured local businesses and services near their paths as well. For these reasons, the score of three was given. Seattle Community Engagement The Stay Healthy Streets program in Seattle utilized their already established neighborhood greenway program to select their Open Streets. While resident input was limited, the city felt these streets were ideal for use due to the presence of traffic calming and increased safety. Despite the lack of engagement when it came to the Stay Healthy Streets, the neighborhood greenways program did include a robust community engagement strategy when it was implemented nearly seven years ago. The city has utilized an almost entirely online engagement strategy in the form of surveys. During the pandemic, this was chosen as the most effective way to reach residents without interacting face to face. The city has also partnered with various neighborhood groups to hear and address concerns with the program. In addition, the Stay Healthy Streets program is beginning to partner with 13 nonprofits and advocacy groups as they push to make several of their Open Streets permanent fixtures within the community. For these reasons, a score of two was given. Population Access Geographic equity was achieved quite well with the Stay Healthy Streets program in Seattle. While the city itself it fairly dense, it is clear to see in Figure 7 that the open streets are able to serve a large portion of the population. Many areas with medium to high density are serviced quite well and even less dense neighborhoods, such as the southwest is also serviced. With closer analysis it was determined that approximately 32 percent of the city had easy access to their Stay Healthy Streets. Since this is in between 20 and 40 percent, the score of two was given. Figure 7: Seattle Population Density Distribution Among Socioeconomic Status Seattle’s Stay Healthy Streets program utilizes a network of neighborhood greenways that are well distributed throughout the city. Figure 8 shows the distribution of the open streets among census blocks with varying rates of median income. It is clear to see that the different income groups are well represented in their ability to access open streets. In an interview with a Seattle transportation planner, it was stated that the city is currently working with a neighborhood with high immigrant and persons of color populations that are presently underserved. The goal is to establish a new neighborhood greenway and subsequent Stay Healthy Street to address concerns of equity within the program. Census blocks with access to the Stay Healthy Streets had a median household income of $85,990, and census blocks without access averaged $101,330. Utilizing a T-test, it was 14 confirmed that there was significant statistical difference (p < 0.05) among lower income populations and better access to the street segments. Since equity was achieved, the program has earned a score of three. Figure 8: Seattle Income Distribution Access to Services and Parkland The objective of the Seattle neighborhood greenways is to make connections that are safe for those walking and biking. Since their open streets follow the greenways, the routes typically run parallel to arterials. Utilizing the open streets, residents can easily access businesses along the arterials and adjacent parks. The city’s far-reaching network enables a high level of accessibility to services and green space. A score of three was given. 15 Scoring Matrix Figure 9 below presents a summary of the scores received from each of the preceding categories for each city. The scores are summed on the right, and a higher score indicates a better overall program. Salt Lake City and Seattle tied at a high score of 10 with Tucson close behind earning a 9. Denver came in last with a final score of 7. Denver’s program fell short in community engagement and total population access. Increasing these two categories would have placed their program on-par with the others. It is important to note that this study did have limitations, and that the overall success of a program is arguably best noted through the use and enjoyment of the respective city’s residents. Figure 9: Final Scoring Matrix 16 Recommendations & Conclusions The best open streets make vital connections within our cities. They should be easily accessible to higher density portions of the city and reach residents of varying income level. Reaching many individuals easily will ensure they are well utilized. It is important for open streets to adequately reach essential services and amenities. Businesses, parkland, and sources of entertainment are ideal destinations that should be effortlessly reached with any open streets program. A robust community engagement model should be used to inform the design and implementation of each program. Resident input is vital to the overall success of the initiative. Building relationships with the community will encourage cohesion and engage the neighborhood in a positive relationship with the city. Vulnerable populations should be reached out to with the aspiration of achieving equity. Language translation and cultural relevancy can aid in reaching these communities. Much can be learned from Tucson’s model of appointing block leaders and including a mobile bike repair to help underserved populations. The analysis done as a part of this project can be used to make informed decisions when planning Open Streets. The criteria outlined and evaluation metrics can be used to determine a program’s overall effectiveness. Similarly, this report can serve as a tool to inform policy making on where, how, and why certain streets within the city are optimal for implementing an Open Street or other accessibility improvements. Open streets are an easily implementable tool that cities have deployed as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic. They increase the space available for recreation and can create park-like benefits in areas with no formal recreation space. These routes can help provide vital connections and increase the rate of accessibility for those without access to a car. They also can provide valuable input to cities on where traffic calming measures can be implemented and where they may make a large impact on increasing safety and encouraging active transportation. These initiatives and their success demonstrate the desire of residents to make streets more than just a vast area for vehicles. City streets are an integral part of the urban fabric and must be an asset that is accessible and enjoyed by all people regardless of income or ability. 17 References Anonymous. (2020, January 22). Seattle Transit Planner Interview [Zoom Interview conducted by Dani Slabaugh]. Anonymous. (2020, January 27). Denver Community Planner Interview [Zoom Interview, conducted by Danielle Slabaugh]. Barillas, G. (2020, November 20). Tucson Transportation Department Interview [Zoom Interview conducted by Jake Gallaher]. Berganthal, D. (2020, November 11). Salt Lake City Transportation Department Interview [Zoom Interview conducted by Jake Gallaher]. Bertolini, L. (2020). From “streets for traffic” to “streets for people”: Can street experiments transform urban mobility? Transport Reviews, 40(6), 734–753. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1761907 Cervero, R., Guerra, E., & Al, S. (2017). Beyond Mobility: Planning Cities for People and Places. Island Press. http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/utah/detail.action?docID=5602383 City and County of Denver. (n.d.). Denver’s Shared Streets for COVID-19. Retrieved April 30, 2021, from https://www.denvergov.org/Government/Departments/Department-of-Transportation-andInfrastructure/Programs-Services/Shared-Streets City of Tucson. (2020, April 27). Tucson Slow Streets. https://www.tucsonaz.gov/tucsonslowstreets Hipp, J. A., Eyler, A. A., Zieff, S. G., & Samuelson, M. A. (2014). Taking Physical Activity to the Streets: The Popularity of Ciclovía and Open Streets Initiatives in the United States. American Journal of Health Promotion, 28(3_suppl), S114–S115. https://doi.org/10.4278/ajhp.28.3s.S114 18 Litman, T. (2020). Guide to Valuing Walking and Cycling Improvements and Encouragement Programs. Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 89. Molina, S. (2020). Play Streets in New York, a safe haven designed to thrive. The Urban Activist. https://theurbanactivist.com/idea/play-streets-in-new-york-a-safe-haven-designed-to-thrive/ Rigolon, A. (2016). A complex landscape of inequity in access to urban parks: A literature review. Landscape and Urban Planning, 153, 160–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.017 Salt Lake City Transportation Department. (n.d.). Stay Safe Stay Active Streets. Retrieved April 30, 2021, from https://www.slc.gov/transportation/2020/04/13/stay-safe-stay-active-streets-responseto-covid-19/ Rodriguez, L. (2011). Pedestrian-Only Shopping Streets Make Communities More Livable. Planetizen Urban Planning News, Jobs, and Education. https://www.planetizen.com/node/47517 Seattle Transportation Department. (n.d.). Stay Healthy Streets—Transportation | seattle.gov. Retrieved April 30, 2021, from https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-andprograms/programs/stay-healthy-streets Torres, A., Sarmiento, O. L., Stauber, C., & Zarama, R. (2013). The Ciclovia and Cicloruta Programs: Promising Interventions to Promote Physical Activity and Social Capital in Bogotá, Colombia. American Journal of Public Health, 103(2), e23–e30. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301142 U.S. Census Bureau; American Community Survey, 2018 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates; using data.census.gov; <https://data.census.gov/cedsci/> 19