The US Pedestrian Plan: Linking Practice and Research

Abstract This paper examines the relationship between research and practice in pedestrian planning, focusing on the pedestrian plan in the United States. A preliminary review of plans and research was used to identify 17 aspects of pedestrian planning. These were ranked in importance through a survey of pedestrian planners at the local and metropolitan levels. A qualitative comparison of the importance attributed these features in planning research, the planners' rankings of these features, and presence and use of these features in plans was conducted. Areas of considerable discrepancy were analyzed more thoroughly, indicating areas where planning practice can benefit from present research, and where planning research could be informed by planning practice.

[1]  Yingling Fan,et al.  Evaluation of Miami–Dade Pedestrian Safety Demonstration Project , 2008 .

[2]  Ray A Moe,et al.  PEDESTRIAN LEVEL OF SERVICE. , 1997 .

[3]  Theodore Anton Petritsch,et al.  Level-of-Service Model for Pedestrians at Signalized Intersections , 2005 .

[4]  Reid Ewing,et al.  Identifying and Measuring Urban Design Qualities Related to Walkability. , 2006, Journal of physical activity & health.

[5]  K. Stanilov,et al.  Site Design and Pedestrian Travel , 1999 .

[6]  Reid Ewing,et al.  Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis , 2001 .

[7]  Jennifer Dill.  Measuring Network Connectivity for Bicycling and Walking , 2004 .

[8]  V. Mehta.  Lively Streets , 2007 .

[9]  Reid Ewing.  Impacts of traffic calming -- A peer-reviewed paper , 2001 .

[10]  Mariela Alfonzo,et al.  Evaluation of the California Safe Routes to School legislation: urban form changes and children's active transportation to school. , 2005, American journal of preventive medicine.

[11]  Jean‐Marc Zaninetti,et al.  A Suburban Nation , 2010 .

[12]  Marwan Al-Azzawi,et al.  Modeling Pedestrian Walking Speeds on Sidewalks , 2007 .

[13]  David Banister,et al.  Configurational Modelling of Urban Movement Networks , 1998 .

[14]  L. Frank,et al.  Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single-Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking , 1994 .

[15]  Kara M. Kockelman,et al.  Travel Behavior as Function of Accessibility, Land Use Mixing, and Land Use Balance: Evidence from San Francisco Bay Area , 1997 .

[16]  Paul Schimek,et al.  Extent and correlates of walking in the USA , 2007 .

[17]  R. Cervero.  Land-Use Mixing and Suburban Mobility , 1988 .

[18]  R. Cervero,et al.  COMMUTING IN TRANSIT VERSUS AUTOMOBILE NEIGHBORHOODS , 1995 .

[19]  Paul Stangl,et al.  Evaluating the pedestrian realm: instrumental rationality, communicative rationality and phenomenology , 2008 .

[20]  R. Kitamura,et al.  A micro-analysis of land use and travel in five neighborhoods in the San Francisco Bay Area , 1997 .

[21]  N. Dempsey.  Quality of the Built Environment in Urban Neighbourhoods , 2008 .

[22]  Catherine Staunton,et al.  Promoting safe walking and biking to school: the Marin County success story. , 2003, American journal of public health.

[23]  B. Giles-Corti,et al.  Increasing walking: how important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? , 2005, American journal of preventive medicine.

[24]  Fang Clara Fang,et al.  A simplified Empirical Bayesian method to safety evaluation of traffic calming treatment for urban road systems , 2009, Int. J. Intell. Syst. Technol. Appl..

[25]  John Pucher,et al.  Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe , 2000 .

[26]  Bruce W Landis,et al.  Modeling the Roadside Walking Environment: Pedestrian Level of Service , 2001 .

[27]  A. Khattak,et al.  Can New Urbanism Encourage Physical Activity?: Comparing a New Urbanist Neighborhood with Conventional Suburbs , 2006 .

[28]  John J. Fruin,et al.  Pedestrian planning and design , 1971 .

[29]  R. Cervero.  Land Uses and Travel at Suburban Activity Centers , 1991 .

[30]  S A Goldsmith,et al.  NATIONAL BICYCLING AND WALKING STUDY. CASE STUDY NO. 1: REASONS WHY BICYCLING AND WALKING ARE AND ARE NOT BEING USED MORE EXTENSIVELY AS TRAVEL MODES , 1992 .

[31]  William H. K. Lam,et al.  PEDESTRIAN FLOW CHARACTERISTICS IN HONG KONG , 1995 .

[32]  S. Carlson,et al.  Barriers to children walking to or from school--United States, 2004. , 2005, MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report.

[33]  Amer Shalaby,et al.  Case Study: Relationship of Walk Access Distance to Transit with Service, Travel, and Personal Characteristics , 2007 .

[34]  Kristen Day,et al.  Active Living and Social Justice: Planning for Physical Activity in Low-income, Black, and Latino Communities , 2006 .

[35]  Reid Ewing,et al.  Impacts of traffic calming , 2000 .

[36]  Brian W. Baetz,et al.  EVALUATING PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY FOR SUBURBAN SUSTAINABILITY , 2001 .

[37]  Sungjin Park,et al.  Factors That Influence Walking and Biking to the Station: Modeling Commuter Rail User's Access Mode Choice , 2008 .

[38]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Evaluation of the health effects of a neighbourhood traffic calming scheme , 2004, Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health.

[39]  Theodore Anton Petritsch,et al.  Pedestrian Level-of-Service Model for Urban Arterial Facilities With Sidewalks , 2006 .

[40]  Alan S. Hoback,et al.  True Walking Distance to Transit , 2008 .

[41]  Marlon G. Boarnet,et al.  Built Environment as Determinant of Walking Behavior: Analyzing Nonwork Pedestrian Travel in Portland, Oregon , 2001 .

[42]  B. Giles-Corti,et al.  The relative influence of individual, social and physical environment determinants of physical activity. , 2002, Social science & medicine.

[43]  Mark E Hallenbeck,et al.  Evaluation of Engineering Treatments and Pedestrian and Motorist Behavior on Major Arterials in Washington State , 2008 .

[44]  David R. Ragland,et al.  The Marked Crosswalk Dilemma: Uncovering Some Missing Links in a 35-Year Debate Author: , 2008 .

[45]  Sheila Sarkar,et al.  QUALITATIVE EVALUATION OF COMFORT NEEDS IN URBAN WALKWAYS IN MAJOR ACTIVITY CENTERS , 2003 .

[46]  R. Cervero,et al.  TRAVEL DEMAND AND THE 3DS: DENSITY, DIVERSITY, AND DESIGN , 1997 .

[47]  Michael R. Baltes,et al.  Pedestrian Level of Service for Midblock Street Crossings , 2002 .

[48]  R. Cervero.  MIXED LAND-USES AND COMMUTING: EVIDENCE FROM THE AMERICAN HOUSING SURVEY , 1996 .

[49]  R A Lyons,et al.  Traffic calming policy can reduce inequalities in child pedestrian injuries: database study , 2005, Injury Prevention.

[50]  Nancy P Humphrey,et al.  TRB Special Report: Does the Built Environment Influence Physical Activity? Examining the Evidence , 2005 .

[51]  Michael Duncan,et al.  Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. , 2003, American journal of public health.

[52]  P. Hess.  Measures of Connectivity , 1997 .

[53]  Mark R Virkler,et al.  PEDESTRIAN SPEED-FLOW-DENSITY RELATIONSHIPS , 1994 .

[54]  Ann Forsyth,et al.  The built environment, walking, and physical activity: Is the environment more important to some people than others? , 2009 .

[55]  J. Jacobs.  The Death and Life of Great American Cities , 1962 .

[56]  M. Southworth.  Designing the Walkable City , 2005 .

[57]  James M Daisa.  ITE Committee Report Summary. Context Sensitive Solutions in Designing Major Urban Thoroughfares for Walkable Communities: An ITE Proposed Recommended Practice , 2006 .