Alternative Pedestrian Routes to Parking Areas, Neighborhoods, and Businesses
Kyler Massner (author), Charlie Cowell, Jonathan Rosenbloom & Brett DuBois (editors)INTRODUCTION
Local governments seeking to increase pedestrian mobility can help by enacting ordinances that require alternative pedestrian routes to and from parking areas, neighborhoods, and businesses.[1] Alternative pedestrian routes include pathways that allow pedestrians safe passage.[2] Some examples include dedicated bicycle or pedestrian pathways over 8 feet wide that connect to existing paths.[3] At a minimum, these ordinances prioritize pedestrian mobility and require developers to provide pedestrian infrastructure (for a discussion on how to aid in the protection and use of these pathways, see Protecting Public Spaces from Weather Conditions brief).[4] In addition, these ordinances strongly disfavor culs-de-sac or dead-end streets which are permitted only if the developer provides a “cut through” or “access” easement for pedestrians, or to protect environmental features such as rivers, forest, and habitats (for a discussion of cut-throughs see Pedestrian Connectivity through Culs-de-sac brief).[5]
When a local government seeks to require alternative pedestrian routes in its zoning or subdivision codes, success can be best realized when accompanied by a pedestrian mobility section within a comprehensive plan that identifies current and future pedestrian needs.[6] In conjunction with ordinances, such a plan can be used to develop a complete system of alternative pedestrian pathways with safe crossings, efficient routes, and a variety of pedestrian facilities. With a comprehensive plan in place, local governments can require compliance with the plan for all required pathways/sidewalks on new or redevelopment projects.[7]
Whether or not a local government chooses to develop a pedestrian plan, requirements for alternative pedestrian routes can be done within existing codes as either stand-alone ordinances or in standards for district or overlay zones. These ordinances require all new or redevelopment projects to install pathways which connect to existing pedestrian infrastructure.[8] These ordinances also require developers to provide multiple alternative pedestrian pathway options to areas both on and off site, which are visible, convenient, and direct.[9] Alternatives can include things such as building new sidewalks that connect to existing ones, widening existing sidewalks, or adding bicycle lanes.[10] For making pedestrian connections, these ordinances should be sure to measure walking distance based on the actual walkable surface as opposed to measuring the direct distance “as the crow flies.”[11]
These ordinances not only apply to neighborhood areas, but also to business and commercial areas where alternative pedestrian pathways are required in parking lots and between adjacent buildings/properties.[12] For example, where a project contains more than one principal building or are over a certain size, these ordinances require a dedicated pedestrian pathway between principal and accessory buildings, between adjacent properties, and one along every street entrance.[13] When requiring alternative pedestrian routes in high automobile traffic areas such as business and commercial areas, it is important that a local government make proper allowances for pedestrian safety that differ from residential areas, such as, but not limited to, wider pathways, signalized crosswalks, and pathway lighting.[14]
EFFECTS
The US Department of Transportation (DOT) finds that “with the exception of work, the large majority of trips each day are less than five miles” thus presenting a major opportunity to promote walkability within our communities.[15] The DOT also recognizes that increased physical activity is associated with municipalities that have high levels of connectivity (i.e., pedestrian infrastructure characterized by “direct routing, accessibility, few dead-ends, and few physical barriers”).[16] Furthermore, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) finds that expanding the availability of pedestrian transportation options increases the tendency to walk which can save lives by preventing chronic diseases, reducing and preventing motor-vehicle-related injury and deaths, improving environmental health, while stimulating economic development, and ensuring access for all people.[17] By placing pedestrian mobility as a priority, ordinances that require alternative pedestrian pathways can improve community health, reduce greenhouse gases, and create a more equitable community.[18]
By requiring alternative pedestrian pathways, walking distances within a community are shortened, which can lead to trips by foot being faster than driving and encourage individuals to walk.[19] Also, the investment into pedestrian infrastructure works to encourage walking by providing amenities for pedestrians and making a trip by foot safer than by car.[20] Thus, by requiring alternative pedestrian pathways, municipalities can promote healthy choices and encourage the individual to reap the health benefits of walking.[21] Not only is health promoted, but these ordinances also have positive environmental/energy benefits since the more people walking reduces the amount of vehicle miles traveled, thus reducing green-house gases emitted by automobiles.[22] Additionally, the US Census Bureau finds that low-income individuals are most likely to bike and walk to work, while only two-thirds of Americans can afford or are legally permitted to drive a vehicle.[23] These statistics raise equity issues pertaining to mobility. By requiring alternative pedestrian pathways, a municipality can promote/improve pedestrian mobility for all members of the community, leading to more equity in transportation options.[24]
EXAMPLES
Bannock County, ID
Bannock County establishes zoning districts to separate land uses and mitigate the effects of land use conflicts.[25] For the purpose of “creat[ing] self-sustaining new communities with integrated commercial, recreational, natural, and residential land uses,” the Master Planned Community (MPC) zoning district requires alternative pedestrian routes in neighborhoods, parking lots, and business areas.[26] Developers in MPC districts are required to consider pedestrian mobility and integrate a pedestrian mobility network that provides multiple pathways to areas within the community.[27] Internal pedestrian pathways which connect to off-site pedestrian infrastructure is a requirement in a MPC district.[28]
To facilitate pedestrian mobility, the County strongly discourages private streets while gated communities are outright prohibited (for a brief discussing pedestrian mobility on private roads see the Increasing Pedestrian Mobility on Internal Private Roads brief).[29] Developers are also permitted to incorporate a variety of sidewalk designs (i.e., meandering pathways or pedestrian streets) provided that such walkways connect to the larger trail system.[30] Additionally, the County makes sidewalks on both sides of the street the standard, which will only be waived if the developer constructs a dedicated bicycle or pedestrian pathway which provides access to other pathway systems.[31] The County also may require pedestrian amenities (i.e., bulb outs and other pedestrian features) to shorten walking distances and increase pedestrian safety depending on the nature of the block, while crosswalks are required to be incorporated at key intersections, mid-blocks, and parking lots.[32]
To view the provisions, see Bannock County, ID, Code of Ordinances § 17.46 (2016).
Atlantic Beach, NC
The city of Atlantic Beach has an “Access and Circulation” section within their Unified Development Ordinance that is applicable to all developments within the municipality.[33] The City describes the purpose of the section as creating a highly connected transportation system that provides mobility choices to its citizens.[34] Specifically, the City sets pedestrian mobility as a top priority and seeks to promote walking by requiring alternative pedestrian pathways between neighborhoods, parks, schools, and commercial areas.[35]
The City executes this mission by requiring sidewalks to be installed along the frontage of all new and redevelopment projects within many residential and commercial districts.[36] The City requires that all development adjacent to vacant land continue all pedestrian and bicycle pathways to the property line of that parcel for continuance of future pedestrian infrastructure.[37] Furthermore, the City strongly discourages culs-de-sac or dead-end streets and when permitted, the developer must “include a sidewalk or multi-use path from the dead end or culs-de-sac to the closest local street, collector street, or to a culs-de-sac in an adjoining subdivision.”[38] Where a sidewalk is not present or where the existing sidewalk system is not connected to other pedestrian infrastructure, a “multi-use path may be proposed in lieu of sidewalks” which are required to connect areas of interest (i.e. schools, shopping centers, parks, etc.), be visible and easily accessible, marked with destination and directional signage, and eliminate crossing vehicle right-a-ways wherever possible.[39] The City requires these multi-use paths to be located in easements dedicated to “pedestrian and bicycle access by members of the general public”, and constructed with durable, low-maintenance materials that are adequately wide to provide clearance for multiple users.[40] Additionally, all streets that do not currently have pedestrian improvements are required to be retrofitted under these standards when redevelopment is sought.[41]
Alternative pathways are also required in parking lots. For developments with on-site parking, the City requires pedestrian walkways that “minimize conflict between pedestrians and traffic at all points of pedestrian access to on-site parking and building entrances.”[42] Defined as “On-site Pedestrian Circulation,” walkways are required to connect building entrances to adjacent building entrances and sidewalks, provide walkways to all access points or parking spaces that are more than fifty-feet from a buildings entrance or on-site destination, and when a project contains two or more principal building, the developer shall provide a “pedestrian walkway between the primary entrance of each principal building.”[43]
To view the provisions, see Atlantic Beach, NC, Code of Ordinances § 18.5.2 (2018).
Orange County, FL
Orange County supports alternative pedestrian routes by requiring pedestrian circulation in a wide variety of zoning districts.[44] Within designated districts projects are required to connect to both existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle pathways which integrate the project to “surrounding streets, external sidewalks, outparcels, and transit stops.”[45] The County requires pedestrian walkways to safely provide access between parking lots and building entrances by separating vehicular and pedestrian traffic and by constructing dedicated pedestrian pathways.[46] Direct pedestrian pathways between buildings are also required unless prevented by physical limitation.[47]
Furthermore, separated pedestrian access points are required at a “minimum ratio of one access point for each vehicular access point.”[48] Further, separated pedestrian access points must be connected to the larger pedestrian network (i.e., public sidewalks, transit stops, outparcels) and located in a manner that provides the “earliest point of off-site pedestrian walkway contact.”[49] The County requires these pedestrian walkways to be designed and constructed to move people safely from building and parking areas by requiring reasonable breaks in parking lots to allow pedestrian access to points of interest.[50]
To view the provisions, see Orange County, FL, Code of Ordinances §§ 38-808, 833, 858, 883, (2013).
ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES
Marietta, GA, Code of Ordinances § 712.09 (2008) (establishing a district that requires alternative pedestrian routes and mandates sidewalk safety measures, pedestrian facilities, and inter-parcel pedestrian access between adjacent lots and within parking lots).
Longmont, CO, Code of Ordinances § 15.03.150 (2015) (requiring developments in the mixed-use district to provide a multi-modal access and circulation plan that integrates off-site pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure with multi-modal connections, cross walks, traffic mitigation improvements, and pedestrian gateways).
Rocky Mount, NC, Code of Ordinances § 712(d)(4)(e)(15) (2011) (providing city officials with the authority to authorize substitution of a sidewalk with alternate pedestrian walkways (i.e., nature trails, direct access pathways)).
Thurston County, WA, Code of Ordinances § 21.70.100 (1996) (requiring pedestrian pathways to be the shortest distance possible and illustrates acceptable parking lot designs that create a pedestrian friendly environment in all commercial developments).
Melbourne, FL, Code of Ordinances § 9.107, 112 (2018); Comprehensive Plan § 3.1 (2011) (requiring all sidewalks and other pathways identified in the city’s comprehensive plan or “Official Future Bikeway/Sidewalk/Pedway Facility Map” to be provided within a new or redevelopment project).
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Env’t Prot. Agency, Smart Growth in Small Towns and Rural Communities, https://perma.cc/L732-ALGK (last visited June 6, 2019).
Env’t Prot. Agency, Healthy Places for Healthy People, https://perma.cc/ULU9-7STH (last visited June 6, 2019).
U.S. Green Bldg. Council, LEED v4 for Neighborhood Development (July 2, 2018), https://perma.cc/4BMB-HDV9.
Douglas Shinkle & Anne Teigen, Nat’l Conference of State Leg., Encouraging Bicycling and Walking: The State Legislative Role (Nov. 2008), https://perma.cc/X2PC-7DY2.
Univ. at Albany, Planning and Policy Models: For Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Communities in New York State (Sept. 2007), https://perma.cc/HU6P-6YMK.
Dep’t of Transp., The National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15-Year Status Report (May 2010), https://perma.cc/XU2F-KQMT.
Dep’t of Transp., Promoting Connectivity (Oct. 26, 2015), https://perma.cc/35NM-FRG6.
Ctr. for Disease Control & Prevention, CDC Recommendations for Improving Health through Transportation Policy (Feb. 7, 2018), https://perma.cc/BJ32-Z63V.
Div. of Planning, Ky. Transp. Cabinet, Street Connectivity: Zoning and Subdivision Model Ordinance (Mar. 2009), https://perma.cc/7QPY-QFSE.
CALGreen, Dep’t of Hous. and Cmty. Dev., Guide to the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code Residential (2013), https://perma.cc/3SPK-R8SN.
CITATIONS
[1] Douglas Shinkle & Anne Teigen, Nat’l Conference of State Leg., Encouraging Bicycling and Walking: The State Legislative Role vii (Nov. 2008), https://perma.cc/X2PC-7DY2.
[2] See Atlantic Beach, N.C., Code of Ordinances § 18.5.2(C)(3) (2018), Bannock Cty., Id., Code of Ordinances § 17.46.100(G)(2) (2016), Orange Cty., Fla., Code of Ordinances § 38-808(a), 833(a), 858(a), 883(a), 1704(a), 1748(a) (2013).
[3] Bannock Cty., Id., Code of Ordinances § 17.46.100(G)(2).
[4] See, e.g., Atlantic Beach, N.C., Code of Ordinances § 18.5.2(C)(4)(a)-(b), (F)(1)(a)(ii).
[5] Id.
[6] Univ. at Albany, Planning and Policy Models for Pedestrian and Bicycle Friendly Communities in New York State 9-10 (Sept. 2007), https://perma.cc/HU6P-6YMK.
[7] See, e.g., Melbourne, Fl., Code of Ordinances art. VII, § 9.112 (2018).
[8] See, e.g., Atlantic Beach, N.C., Code of Ordinances § 18.5.2(F).
[9] See Melbourne, Fl., Comprehensive Plan ch. 3, obj. 3.1 (2011); Div. of Planning, Ky. Transp. Cabinet, Street Connectivity: Zoning and Subdivision Model Ordinance 1-9 (Mar. 2009), https://perma.cc/7QPY-QFSE.
[10] Melbourne, Fl., Comprehensive Plan ch. 3, obj. 3.1 (2011).
[11] CALGreen, Dep’t of Hous. And Cmty. Dev., Guide to the 2013 California Green Building Standards Code Residential 77-78 (2013), https://perma.cc/3SPK-R8SN.
[12] See, e.g., Atlantic Beach, N.C., Code of Ordinances § 18.5.2.
[13] See, e.g., id. § 18.5.2(C), (F).
[14] See, e.g., id. § 18.5.2(E).
[15] City & Cty. Of Denver, City and County of Denver Pedestrian Master Plan 2 (Aug. 2004), https://perma.cc/97F6-68SU.
[16] Dep’t of Transp., Promoting Connectivity (Oct. 26, 2015), https://perma.cc/35NM-FRG6.
[17] Ctr. For Disease Control & Prevention, CDC Recommendations for Improving Health Through Transportation Policy 1 (archived on Feb. 7, 2018) https://perma.cc/BJ32-Z63V (last visited June 4, 2019); Dep’t of Transp., The National Bicycling and Walking Study: 15-Year Status Report 2-3 (May 2010), https://perma.cc/XU2F-KQMT.
[18] Dep’t of Transp., supra note 16, at 2; CDC, supra note 17, at 1-9.
[19] Dep’t of Transp., supra note 16, at 2; CDC, supra note 17, at 1-9; Shinkle & Teigen, supra note 1, at 5-6.
[20] Ctr. For Disease Control & Prevention, supra note 17, at 1-9.
[21] Dep’t of Transp., supra note 16, at 2; CDC, supra note 17, at 1-9.
[22] Dep’t of Transp., supra note 16, at 2; CDC, supra note 17, at 1-9.
[23] Tanya Snyder, Low-Income Americans Walk and Bike to Work the Most, StreetsBlog (May 8, 2014), https://perma.cc/D69Q-BQX8.
[24] Natasha Frost, For the Good of All Humankind, Make Your City More Walkable, Quartz (Oct. 13, 2018) https://perma.cc/FPD3-RHAR.
[25] Bannock Cty., Id., Code of Ordinances § 17.08.020 (1998).
[26] Id. § 17.46.010 (2016).
[27] Id. § 17.46.100(G)(5), (H).
[28] Id. § 17.46.060.
[29] Id. § 17.46.100(G)(1).
[30] Id. § 17.46.100(G)(2).
[31] Id. § 17.46.100(G)(2).
[32] Id. § 17.46.100(G)(3)-(4).
[33] Atlantic Beach, N.C., Code of Ordinances § 18.1.5.
[34] Id. § 18.5.2(A).
[35] Id. § 18.5.2(A).
[36] Id. § 18.5.2(F)(1)(a)(i).
[37] Id. § 18.5.2(C)(3).
[38] Id. § 18.5.2(C)(4)(a)-(b), (F)(1)(a)(ii).
[39] Id. § 18.5.2(F)(2).
[40] Id. § 18.5.2(F)(2)(a)(iii).
[41] Id. § 18.5.2(C)(5).
[42] Id. § 18.5.2(F)(3).
[43] Id. § 18.5.2(F)(3).
[44] Orange Cty. Fla., Code of Ordinances § 38-808, 833, 858, 883, 1704, 1748.
[45] Id. § 38-808(a), 833(a), 858(a), 883(a), 1704(a), 1748(a).
[46] Id.
[47] Id.
[48] Id. § 38-808(b), 833(b), 858(b), 883(b), 1704(b), 1748(b).
[49] Id.
[50] Id. § 38-808(c)-(g), 833(c)-(g), 858(c)-(g), 883(c)-(g), 1350, 1748(c)-(g) https://perma.cc/SHH2-JYY9.