Oregon_Neighbor Street Design Guidelines

NEIGHBORHOOD STREET DESIGN GUIDELINES An Oregon Guide for Reducing Street Widths A Consensus Agreement by the Stakeholder Design Team November 2000 Prepared by the Neighborhood Streets Project Stakeholders This guidebook is dedicated to the memory of Joy Schetter who passed away before she could see the remarkable success of this project. Joy’s leadership, hard work, calm manner, and ability to work with all of the stakeholders were key factors in that success. Funding for this project was provided from two State of Oregon programs: the Public Policy Dispute Resolution Program and the Transportation and Growth Management (TGM) Program. TGM is a joint program between the Oregon Department of Transportation and the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The TGM Program relies on funding from the Federal Transportation Efficiency Act for the Twenty-First Century (TEA –21) and the State of Oregon. 2nd Printing - June 2001 Includes minor clarifications to the sections on residential fire sprinklers (pages 9 and 16.) Fire/Emergency Response * Bob Garrison (Office of State Fire Marshal) * Jeff Grunewald (Tualatin Valley Fire & Rescue) * Burton Weast (Oregon Fire District Directors’ Association) Gary Marshall (City of Bend Fire Marshal) Ken Johnson (for Michael Sherman, Oregon Fire Chiefs Association) Debbie Youmans (Oregon Chiefs of Police Association) Service Providers Ron Polvi (NW Natural) Kristan Mitchell (Oregon Refuse and Recycling Association) John Fairchild (School Board Association) Developers/Consultants * Ernie Platt (Oregon Building Industry Association) Rod Tomcho (Tennant Developments) Ryan O’Brien (LDC Design Group) Transportation Engineers/Planners * Jim West (Institute of Transportation Engineers: Kimley-Horn Inc.) Peter Fernandez (City of Salem) Public Works * Byron Meadows (American Public Works Association, Oregon Chapter; Marion County Public Works Operations Supervisor) Non-Profit Groups * Amber Cole Hall (Livable Oregon, Inc.) Lynn Petersen (1000 Friends of Oregon) City Representatives * John McLaughlin (City Planning Directors’ Association; Community Development Director, City of Ashland) Cameron Gloss (City of Klamath Falls) Jan Fritz (City Councilor of Sublimity) Allen Lowe (City of Eugene Planning) John Legros (City of Central Point Planning Commissioner) Bob Dean (City of Roseburg Planning Commission Chair) Margaret Middleton (for Randy Wooley, City of Beaverton Engineering) County Representative/Planner Tom Tushner (Washington County) Lori Mastrantonio-Meuser (County Planning Directors’ Association) PROJECT STAKEHOLDERS * Design Team Members The Design Team was re- sponsible for the overall collaborative process with assistance from a facilita- tor and DLCD staff. The Design Team vested them- selves with responsibility for negotiating the issues and guiding the develop- ment of this agreement. These Guidelines have been endorsed by . . . - Office of the State Fire Marshal - Oregon Fire Chiefs Assoc. - Oregon Fire Marshal’s Assoc. - Oregon Chiefs of Police Assoc. - Oregon Refuse and Recy- cling Assoc. - Oregon Building Industry Assoc. - Oregon Chapter of the American Planning Assoc. - Oregon Chapter of the American Public Works Assoc. - Assoc. of Oregon City Planning Directors - Livable Oregon, Inc. - 1000 Friends of Oregon - Oregon Department of Land Conservation & Development - Oregon Department of Transportation - Metro also supports the guidelines and has adopted a specific set of guidelines for the Portland metropoli- tan region. Regional Government Tom Kloster (and Kim White, Metro) State Government * Eric Jacobson (Department of Land Conservation and Development) Amanda Punton (Department of Land Conservation & Development) Kent Belleque (for Jeff Scheick, Oregon Department of Transportation) Project Managers Joy Schetter,ASLA (Department of Land Conservation & Development) Elaine Smith,AICP(Department of Land Conservation & Development) Project Mediator/Facilitator Keri Green (Keri Green and Associates, Ashland, Oregon) Many thanks to the Neighborhood Streets Project Stakeholders, Design Team Members, and the Community of Reviewers for the time and expertise they contributed to this effort. I. Introdution........................................................................1 II. The Isues............................................................................1 Why Narrow Streets? Why are Emergency Service Providers Concerned? III. Background.......................................................................3 IV. Collaborative Process.......................................................6 V. A Community Process for Adopting Standards............7 VI. Checklist for Neighborhood Streets...............................8 Key Factors The Checklist VII. Model Cross-Sections......................................................16 Appendix A. References and Resources.......................................21 B. Oregon Community Street Widths.........................24 Table of Contents The standards for the design of local streets, in particular the width of streets, has been one of the most contentious issues in local jurisdictions in Oregon for the past decade. The disagreements have also been fought at the state level among state agencies and advisory, advocacy, and profes- sional groups that have sought to influence decisions made at the local level. Previous efforts of these groups to provide guidance have failed because of lack of consensus. This document is the result of the hard work of a group of diverse stakeholders that finally developed that consensus. Neighborhood Street Design Guidelines was developed to help local governments consider and select neighborhood street standards appropriate for their communities. As the title attests, the handbook provides guidelines and is not pre- scriptive. The authors hope that the consideration of the guidelines and examples will stimulate creative ideas for street designs in local communities. This guidebook explains the issues surrounding the width of neighborhood streets with respect to livability and access for emergency and other large vehicles. It recommends a com- munity process for developing neighborhood street width standards, a checklist of factors that should be addressed in that process, street cross-sections, and a list of resources that provide additional information. The guidelines are in- tended for local jurisdiction streets that carry limited traffic, not collectors or arterials. They are not intended, nor are they to be used on state highways. Why Narrow Streets? Streets are key determinants of neighborhood livability. They provide access to homes and neighborhood destina- tions for pedestrians and a variety of vehicle types, from bicycles and passenger cars to moving vans and fire appara- tus. They provide a place for human interaction: a place where children play, neighbors meet, and residents go for walks and bicycle rides. The design of residential streets, together with the amount and speed of traffic they carry, contributes significantly to a sense of community, neighbor- hood feeling, and perceptions of safety and comfort. The fact that these may be intangible values makes them no less real, and this is often reflected in property values. I. Introduction II. The Issues 1 The width of streets also affects other aspects of livability. Narrow streets are less costly to develop and maintain and they present less impervious surface, reducing runoff and water quality problems. The topic of automobile speeds on neighborhood streets probably tops the list of issues. Where streets are wide and traffic moves fast, cities often get requests from citizens to install traffic calming devices, such as speed humps. How- ever, these can slow response times of emergency service vehicles creating the same, or worse, emergency response concerns than narrow streets. Oregon’s Land Conservation and Development Commission recognized the values associated with narrow street widths when it adopted the Transportation Planning Rule. The rule requires local governments to establish standards for local streets and accessways that minimize pavement width and right-of-way. The rule requires that the standards provide for the operational needs of streets, including pedestrian and bicycle circulation and emergency vehicle access. Why Are Emergency Service Providers Concerned? Street width affects the ability of emergency service vehicles to quickly reach a fire or medical emergency. Emergency service providers and residents alike have an expectation that neighborhood streets provide adequate space for emer- gency vehicles to promptly reach their destination and for firefighters to efficiently set up and use their equipment. Fire equipment is large and local fire departments do not have full discretion to simply “downsize” their vehicles. Efforts by some departments to do this have generally not been successful, since these smaller vehicles did not carry adequate supplies for many typical emergency events. The size of fire apparatus is driven, in part, by federal Occu- pational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) require- ments and local service needs. The regulations require that fire trucks carry considerable equipment and that firefighters ride completely enclosed in the vehicle. In addition, to save money, fire departments buy multi-purpose vehicles that can respond to an emergency like a heart attack or a traffic acci- dent, as well as a fire. These vehicles typically provide the 2 first response to an emergency. An ambulance will then provide transport to a hospital, if needed. To accommodate the need to move the vehicles and access equipment on them quickly, the Uniform Fire Code calls for a 20-foot wide clear passage. The risk of liability also raises concerns about response time and the amount of equipment carried on trucks. A success- ful lawsuit in West Linn, Oregon found that a response time of eight minutes was inadequate. The National Fire Protec- tion Association, which is the national standard-setting body for the fire service, is proposing new rules that would require a maximum four-minute response time for initial crews and eight-minute response for full crews and equip- ment for 90% of calls. Fire departments have also been sued for not having the proper equipment at the scene of an accident. This puts pressure on departments to load all possible equipment onto a vehicle and increases the need to use large vehicles. Residential streets are complex places that serve multiple and, at times, competing needs. Residents expect a place that is relatively quiet, that connects rather than divides their neighborhood, where they can walk along and cross the street relatively easily and safely, and where vehicles move slowly. Other street users, including emergency service providers, solid waste collectors, and delivery trucks, expect a place that they can safely and efficiently access and maneuver to perform their jobs. Clearly, balanc- ing the needs of these different users is not an easy task. Oregon’s cities reflect a variety of residential street types. In many older and historic neighborhoods built between 1900 and 1940, residential streets typically vary in width in rela- tion to the length and function of the street. In many cases, a typical residential street may be 24 feet to 28 feet in width with parking on both sides. However, it is not uncommon to find streets ranging from 20 feet to 32 feet in width within the same neighborhood. Newer subdivisions and neighbor- hood streets built since 1950 tend to reflect a more uniform design, with residential streets typically 32 feet to 36 feet in width with parking on both sides and little or no variation within a neighborhood. III. Background 3 Designs For Livability. Over the last decade, citizens, planners, and public officials throughout the United States have expressed increased interest in development of com- pact, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. The design of neighborhood streets is a key component in this effort. Nationally, the appropriate width and design of neighbor- hood streets has been the subject of numerous books and articles targeted not just to the planning and development community, but also the general population. In May 1995, Newsweek magazine featured an article on neotraditional planning that listed reducing the width of neighborhood streets as one of the “top 15 ways to fix the suburbs.” In addition, developments such as Kentlands in Maryland and Celebration in Florida have gained fame by incorporating many of the features of traditional, walkable neighborhoods and towns, including narrow neighborhood streets. Safe and Livable. There is growing appre- ciation for the relationship between street width, vehicle speed, the number of crashes, and resulting fatalities. Deaths and injuries to pedestrians increase significantly as the speed of motor vehicles goes up. In 1999, planner Peter Swift studied approximately 20,000 police accident reports in Longmont, Colorado to determine which of 13 physical characteristics at each accident location (e.g., width, curvature, sidewalk type, etc.) ac- counts for the crash. The results are not entirely surprising: the highest correlation was between collisions and the width of the street. A typical 36-foot wide residential street has 1.21 collisions/mile/year as op- posed to 0.32 for a 24 foot wide street. The safest streets were narrow, slow, 24-foot wide streets. Award-Winning Neighborhoods. In Oregon, citizens, non- profit organizations, transportation advocates, and state agencies interested in the livability of our communities have advocated reducing the width of neighborhood streets. Several new developments that include narrow neighbor- hood streets such as Fairview Village in Fairview, West Bend Village in Bend, and Orenco Station in Hillsboro have re- ceived Governor’s Livability Awards (See Appendix A for contact Graphic adapted from “Best Management Practices,” Reid Ewing, 1996; data from “Traffic Management and Road Safety,” Durkin & Pheby, 1992. 4 Collision information). Although cited as models of livable communi- ties, the narrow street widths included in these developments are not allowed in many of Oregon’s cities, often because of concerns about emergency service access. Emergency Response. The movement to reduce street stan- dard widths raised concerns with emergency service provid- ers. Thus, the most controversial issue facing Oregon’s fire departments in the past decade has been street width. Fire departments must move large trucks, on average, 10 feet wide mirror-to-mirror. Response times can be slowed depending upon the amount of on-street parking and traffic encountered. Narrow streets lined with parked cars may not provide adequate space for firefighters to access and use their equipment once they have reached the scene of an emergency. In addition, emergency vehicle access can be completely blocked on streets that provide less than 10 feet of clear travel width. Authority to Establish Standards. Prior to 1997, there had been some confusion over who had the authority to establish street standards. Oregon’s land use laws grant local govern- ments the authority to establish local subdivision standards, which include street widths (ORS 92.044). However, the Uniform Fire Code, which was adopted by the State Fire Marshal and is used by many local governments to establish standards for the prevention of and protection from fires, includes standards which affect the width and design of streets. The Uniform Fire Code is published by the Western Fire Chiefs and the International Congress of Building Offi- cials as partners. This question of authority was clarified in 1997 when ORS 92.044 was amended to state that standards for the width of streets established by local governments shall “supersede and prevail over any specifications and standards for roads and streets set forth in a uniform fire code adopted by the State Fire Marshal, a municipal fire department or a county firefighting agency.” ORS 92.044 was also amended to estab- lish a consultation requirement for the local governments to “consider the needs of the fire department or fire-fighting agency when adopting the final specifications and standards.” 5 This project was undertaken to: The collaborative process relied on two groups of stakehold- ers. A larger group was comprised of a broad cross-section of interest groups and numbered about thirty people from around the state. A core team of nine members, a subset of the larger group, was convened to guide the collaborative problem-solving process, working in conjunction with the consultant and staff. This “Design Team” consisted of repre- sentatives from these groups: special districts, fire service, state fire marshal, non-profit advocacy, traffic engineering, builder/developer, city planner, public works, and a repre- sentative from the Department of Land Conservation and Development. The Design Team’s responsibilities were to recommend participants for the larger collaborative working group, determine the priority interests, recommend a statewide endorsement and implementation process, and provide input on technical presentations required. At the Design Team’s first meeting, they decided to assign themselves the task of creating the draft street design guidelines. They would take their products to the larger group for input, recommendations, and eventual endorsement. Consensus would be sought within the Design Team before going to the large group. Likewise, consensus at the large group would be fundamental to achieving the project’s goals. The large group was instrumental in providing actual sce- narios of community experiences to the Design Team. They also helped enlarge the scope of affected parties and corre- sponding issues by including other service providers that use large vehicles, such as school busses and solid waste haulers. Members of the large group provided valuable reference materials to the Design Team. They provided substance that had been over-looked on more than one occasion. Large group members were pleased to know that a core team of well-respected stakeholders was representing their interests. The Design Team engaged the large group at significant junctures in its work. IV. Collaborative Process “Develop consensus and endorsement by stakeholders on a set of flexible guidelines for neighborhood street designs for new developments that result in reduced street widths.” 6 Unique issues will arise in each community, whether related to hills, higher density neighborhoods, or existing street patterns. Close collaboration with fire and emergency ser- vice providers, public works agencies, refuse haulers, and other neighborhood street users must be maintained throughout the process. This will ensure that the standards developed to meet the general goals of the community will also meet the specific needs of different stakeholder groups. The following steps reflect a realistic process development and local government adoption of standards for narrow neighborhood streets. Determine stakeholders. There are many benefits to a com- munity adopting narrow street standards. Many stakehold- ers share an interest in residential transportation issues. These stakeholders must be included from the outset of any new street standard adoption process. V. A Community Process for Adopting Standards Through broad-based involvement, educational efforts, and sensitive interaction with stakeholders, a community can adopt new street standards that will meet the transporta- tion needs of the c