Limit Driveway Access Points
Erica Feldhake (author), Charlie Cowell, Jonathan Rosenbloom & Tegan Jarchow (editors)INTRODUCTION
According to the U.S. Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, there were close to 6,000 pedestrians killed by traffic crashes in 2016.[1] This risk is heightened in areas where pedestrians often encounter vehicles, such as walking through driveway access points.[2] The more driveway access points through pedestrian areas, the more opportunities there are to create unsafe conflict points between pedestrians and vehicles.[3]
Local communities can limit unsafe encounters between pedestrians and vehicles by reducing or regulating driveway access points, particularly in commercial areas and large internal circulation and parking areas. One way to reduce driveway access points is to encourage joint use driveways via access easements granted between and among owners of adjacent properties.[4] Alternatively, ordinances can incentivize on-street parking or only allow for driveway access points on the side or back of lots away from primary pedestrian routes.
Alternatively, local governments can limit the width of access points, so as to minimize the exposure of pedestrians to the potential unsafe conflict points. An example of a recommendation for such a standard is “7 feet with 1 1/2 foot wings” for residential access points, and with slightly wider specifications where truck loading is a frequent occurrence.[5] Other strategies include limiting driveways within the functional vicinity of intersections, constructing medians that prevent left-turns into driveways (“72 percent of crashes at a driveway involve a left-turning vehicle”), and regulating the vertical grade of the driveway so that there is an unobstructed view and sufficient stopping distance.[6] Other driveway regulations include driveway width designed for adequate turning radius balanced with restricting the speed of entering, sufficient driveway length, “use of colored pavement across driveways”, and use of flashing signs and/or lights to warn pedestrians of a vehicle about to cross a sidewalk from an adjacent parking area.[7]
As noted above, local governments have multiple options for regulating driveway access points. The greatest opportunity for regulating driveway access points occurs during the development of new construction. Permit approvals for certain developments may be conditioned upon the use of joint driveways by developers. Driveways may not be permitted if they are found to be unsafe or inefficient. Access points may still be regulated when properties are redeveloped.
Different zoning districts, such as commercial or residential districts, may have different driveway access point standards. Limiting driveways is most efficient in commercial districts, where it is efficient and convenient for multiple businesses to share a single parking lot. Residential districts come with their own challenges. While in some developments it is possible to design shared driveways for neighboring houses, this is often only practical to regulate or mandate during the pre-development phase. Instead, regulations in residential districts should focus on the safety of the driveway, such as maintaining a level plane for sidewalks crossing sloped driveways, and maintaining the sidewalk material through the driveway, as opposed to cutting the sidewalk separately from the driveway. Different streets within zones may have different standards that tailor requirements to current or desired pedestrian activity levels. Residential standards can also differ between, urban, suburban, and rural areas.[8] This is due to differing geography, topography, and pedestrian and vehicular use patterns.[9]
EFFECTS
Fewer accidents happen when vehicles have fewer interactions with other vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians. Driveways create areas where drivers and pedestrians are likely to interact. By reducing the number of driveways local governments reduce the number of possible interactions between vehicles and pedestrians.[10] This reduction in driveways can help reduce the number of people injured or killed by vehicles.[11]
Having fewer or narrower driveway access points also creates a more visually appealing street. Driveways are not visually appealing to most people. Areas not used for driveways could be utilized for other uses. One alternative use for this space is planting different vegetation to improve street aesthetics.[12] Other alternatives could include continuous building frontages,[13] outdoor dining areas, or pedestrian pathways to parking lots in the rear of buildings. When people make the decision to walk, they care about the aesthetics of an area.[14] The improved aesthetics will encourage more people to walk in the area.[15] There are many health benefits to walking. Walking reduces the risk of heart disease and strokes, improves the management of high blood pressure, joint and muscular pain, and diabetes, improves bone strength and balance, increases muscle strength and endurance, and reduces body fat.[16]
EXAMPLES
Surprise, AZ
In 2009, Surprise, AZ created an ordinance reducing the number of driveways on certain streets.[17] Developers looking to develop in this area must create safe and efficient access to their residential and commercial/industrial lots.[18] When creating these access points, they are required to give due consideration to pedestrian and vehicle safety.[19] If creating a driveway access point is found to be unsafe to adjacent public streets, then it will not be permitted.[20] When it is possible, shared driveways are required by the City.[21] If a modification in property use changes the type of driveway operation, and the driveway is no longer in conformance with City standards, the driveway may be relocated, forced into conformance, or closed.[22]
To view the provisions, see Surprise, AZ, Code of Ordinances § 122-121(h) (2009).
Milton, FL
In 2016, Milton created a Unified Development Code.[23] As part of the code, Milton recognizes that reducing the number of driveway access points is more convenient and safe for pedestrians and motorists.[24] In mixed-use areas the City encourages, but does not require, owners of adjacent properties to share access through parking areas.[25] Shared access is mostly encouraged within heavily commercial areas.[26] The owners of each property grant each other access easements.[27] The access easements reduce the number of driveway access points by only requiring one for multiple properties. The easements allow people to travel across one of the properties and have access to another property without having to reenter a City road.
To view the provisions, see Milton, FL, Unified Development Code §15.4 (C) (2016).
ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES
Laramie, WY, Unified Development Code § 15.14.040 (2010) (allowing credit for use of on-street parking within 250 feet of the main entrance and public parking that is available for use within 1,000 feet of the main entrance towards the required off-street parking requirement).
Atlanta, GA, Code of Ordinances § 16-18Q.018. (2008) (not allowing driveway access points on a certain street when access is available from a side street or rear street located immediately adjacent to a property).
Duval, WA, Code of Ordinances § 14.34.051 (2018) (encouraging the use of shared driveways and parking court in residential areas to reduce the visual impact on the neighborhood).
Aiken, SC, Code of Ordinances § 4.8.5 (2014) (number of driveways can be limited by street type and in order to maintain public safety).
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Mid-Coast Reg’l Planning Comm’n, Access Management Standards for Municipal Roadways, https://perma.cc/4GRW-9L4J (last viewed May 24, 2019).
CITATIONS
[1] United States Dep’t of Transp. Nat’l Highway Traffic Safety Admin., Traffic Safety Facts (March 2018), https://perma.cc/249Z-UQYY.
[2] See Id.
[3] City & County of San Francisco, Driveways (2015), https://perma.cc/VM9L-2PWK.
[4] Fed. Highway Admin.: Office of Safety, Access Management in the Vicinity of Intersections (last modified Apr. 1, 2019), https://perma.cc/FFK3-YFXC.
[5] City & County of San Francisco, supra note 3.
[6] Fed. Highway Admin.: Office of Safety, supra at note 4.
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] City & County of San Francisco, supra at note 3.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] See Active Frontages, City of Sydney, https://perma.cc/H2WK-AWG9 (last viewed May 24, 2019).
[14] Gina S. Lovasi et al., Aesthetic Amenities and Safety Hazards Associated with Walking and Bicycling for Transportation In New York City, 45 Ann. Behav. Med. (2013), https://perma.cc/M84W-MGJU.
[15] Id.
[16] Better Health Channel, Walking for Good Health, Victoria State Gov. (June 2015), https://perma.cc/YPU3-2JYE.
[17] Surprise, AZ, Code of Ordinances § 122-120(h) (2009).
[18] Id.
[19] Id. at § 122-120(h)(1)(a).
[20] Id. at § 122-120(h)(1)(e).
[21] Id. at § 122-120(h)(1)(f)(2).
[22] Id. at § 122-120(h)(1)(h).
[23] Milton, FL, Unified Development Code §15.4 (C) (2016).
[24] See id.
[25] Id at §15.4 (C)(2).
[26] See id. at §15.4 (B).
[27] Id. at §15.4 (C)(4).