|
most cornmonJy impJemented measure, with
<br />3z percenl/nd/cat/n§ [hey had included provi-
<br />sions in the zoning ordinance to permit it and
<br />an additional 50 percent having done it to
<br />some extent Ii.e, presumably ,~hey allowed Jt
<br />in some but not ail districts). Also scoring' hig'h
<br />were bicycle and pedestrian cra/is, with z6 per-
<br />cent indicating they had required or encour-
<br />aged the incorporation of such facilities into
<br />subdivisions since t993, with an additional
<br />percent hay/n§ done so to some extent.
<br />Increasin§ development density near transit
<br />also scored big.h--t6 percent indicated it had
<br />been implemented [o a great extent, and a6
<br />percent said it had been done to some extent.
<br />
<br /> Specifically, smart
<br />
<br /> growth seeks to
<br /> encourage compact
<br /> design,- waikable
<br /> neighborhoods, and
<br />
<br />the creation of more
<br />transportation options.
<br />
<br />ties, goals, and objectives related to walka-
<br />b/lib/, alternate transportation modes, and
<br />quality-of-life enhancement (all of which are
<br />commonly'found in the plans listed in the sur-
<br />vey) are inherently supportive o/: physical
<br />activity goals and thus such plans were per-
<br />ceived to be explicitly attentive to health con-
<br />cerns. ~Nhi[e it is si§nificant (hat planners per-
<br />ceive ~hat physical activity and health of
<br />residents are being addressed in these plans,
<br />expressly stating' such §pals wout~l require a
<br />stronger civic commitment to heat .t~. on the
<br />part of the local jurisdiction and wou[d result
<br />in programming' and resources directed at cre-
<br />ating, active communities. And, of course,
<br />
<br /> ' ',~1l
<br /> S-foot-wide sidewalks ~ ~
<br />aenenes, shelters aloo~ transit routes i~ ~ II
<br /> Bike lanes in new roadways ~ ~
<br /> 0 20 ~0 60 80 100
<br />
<br /> % of Respondents (N=I,~00; 62% indicated one or more)
<br />
<br />Required in m Required in ~ Not required
<br />
<br /> Perk'~ and rec
<br /> Comprehensive
<br /> 8ike/ped
<br /> Transportation
<br />
<br /> OOWOtOWfl
<br />
<br /> Neighborhood
<br />Community facilities
<br />Growth management
<br />
<br /> Human services
<br />
<br />I ' ' ' 64.
<br />
<br /> 0 10 2.0 30 40 50 60 70
<br />
<br />% of Respondents (N=r,ooo; 88% indicated one or more)
<br />
<br /> Next, we asked respondents to be even
<br />more specific about facilities being installed
<br />to support bio/clio§ and walking, such as
<br />sidewalks, bike lanes, and street furniture
<br />(Fi§ute ]). We asked ,,vhe[her each element is
<br />required by the jurisdiction in most cases, all
<br />cases, some cases, or not at all. in practice,
<br />the jurisdiction installs some facilities, such
<br />as bike lanes; on the other hand, a developer
<br />installs sidewalks in most cases.
<br />
<br /> By a significant mar§in, tl~e most com-
<br />monly required element was sidewalks in new
<br />developments (53 percent require them in most
<br />or all cases; 33 percent require (hem ih some
<br />devetoprnents). Also scorin§ high ,,vas a
<br />requirement or condition that new sidewalks be
<br />a minimum pi: five feet ,,vide (~4 percent require
<br />them in most or all cases; 3z percent require
<br />(hem in ~ome cases). Urban designers and
<br />trivets[es for pedestrians regard this as [he
<br />minlmom width for users to be able (o walls ~wo
<br />abreast and <o pass ,)[hers or be passed safely.
<br />
<br />Scoring {ewer, al. though still relatively common,
<br />were several other measures, including requir-
<br />ing or providing pedestrian-~riend[y architec-
<br />ture, such as build/n§ designs that minimize the
<br />amount of blank wall area in hig.h pedestriaD-
<br />traffic areas, awnings and shelters near transit,
<br />and street furniture and street trees.
<br /> Finally, we asked planners to tell us
<br />which of the common G'pes of plans in their
<br />jurisdiction contain explicit policies, §o~ls
<br />and/or obiectives related to increasing resi-
<br />dents' opportunities for physical activity
<br />(Figure 4)- As shown in Figure 4, 84 percent
<br />indicated the parks and recreation plan con-
<br />tains such explicit policies, 8t percent indi-
<br />cated ~hat ~he comprehensive plan contains
<br />them, and q7 percent said the bicycle and
<br />pedestrian p~an cent.a/ns them.
<br />
<br /> Further anaivsis of the actual plans, how-
<br />ever, revealed that tew even mention health as
<br />a :~oal. This led us to conclude that, in ~he
<br />view ,)f planners 'Ne surveyed, the plan poll-
<br />
<br />broadenin§ plans and the plan-making
<br />process to intrude health issues and advocat-
<br />ing. for greater focus on the issue could help
<br />leverage ~ubstantial and previously untapped
<br />support for ail the smart growth reforms juris-
<br />dictions have undertaken in recent years.
<br />
<br />ORDINANCES TO PROMOTE
<br />
<br />PHYSICAL ACTIVITY
<br />There are two primary regulatory approaches to
<br />creating walkable communities. ,'['he first is the
<br />planning and construction of infrastructure that
<br />supports pedestrian and bicycte activity, includ-
<br />in§ sidewalks, crosswa!ks, traffic calming
<br />devices, direct connections, ~ransit shelters,
<br />street trees, and street furniture. The second
<br />involves urban desi§n elements (hat, together
<br />with [he infrastructure, create down<owns,
<br />neighborhoods, and streets (h~t are inviting' ~o
<br />walkers_In terms of ordinances and re§uiationg,
<br />Lhere am many options communities have to
<br />effectuate ~he goats ofwalkabiliLv and bikeabil-
<br />
<br />ZONING PRACTICF. o6.oA
<br />,MERICAN P,~N DH NG ASSOCIATION I.~.~e7~
<br />
<br />
<br />
|