URBAN STREETSCAPE DESIGN AND CRASH SEVERITY docs.trb.org/prp/15-2942.pdf1 URBAN STREETSCAPE DESIGN AND CRASH SEVERITY ... 19 which provide important roof-life enclosure for many

  • View
    220

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Text of URBAN STREETSCAPE DESIGN AND CRASH SEVERITY docs.trb.org/prp/15-2942.pdf1 URBAN STREETSCAPE DESIGN...

  • Harvey and Aultman-Hall 1

    URBAN STREETSCAPE DESIGN AND CRASH SEVERITY 1 2

    Chester Harvey 3 Graduate Research Assistant 4 Transportation Research Center* 5 Phone: 802-377-2760 6 chesterharvey@gmail.com 7 8 Lisa Aultman-Hall 9 Professor, School of Engineering 10 Transportation Research Center* 11 Phone: 802-656-1245 12 laultman@uvm.edu 13 14 *Transportation Research Center 15 University of Vermont 16 210 Colchester Avenue 17 Burlington, VT 05405 18

    19 20 21 22 23

    24 A Paper Submitted August 1, 2014 for Presentation at the 2015 Annual Meeting of the 25 Transportation Research Board and Publication in the Transportation Research Record 26

    27 Edited and Resubmitted November 13, 2014 28

    29 Total words = 5,997 + 250*6 (4 Figures + 2 Tables) = 7,497 30

  • Harvey and Aultman-Hall 2

    ABSTRACT 1 2 Streetscape design is increasingly acknowledged as a tool for improving traffic safety and 3 livability in urban settings. While traditional highway safety engineering promotes widening and 4 removing obstacles from roadside clear zones to reduce collision potential, a contrasting 5 framework proposes that smaller, more enclosed streetscapes may incentivize slower, less risky 6 driving and therefore improve both livability and safety outcomes. Such a strategy may have 7 particular relevance along urban arterials, where large clear zones may be impractical due to 8 complex adjacent land uses and promotion of livable spaces is an increasing focus. 9

    This study examined streetscape design and traffic safety in urban settings by assessing 10 relationships between crash severity and streetscape design variables in New York City. A GIS-11 based method was used to precisely capture streetscape design measurements at the locations of 12 more than 240,000 crashes. Logistic regression models indicated that crashes on smaller, more 13 enclosed streetscapes were less likely to result in injury or death compared with those on larger, 14 more open streetscapes. These results point to infill development and street tree planting as 15 safety countermeasures that are consistent with additional livability goals such as walkability, 16 high quality public realm design, and provision of natural amenities. 17

    18 Key Words: streetscape design, traffic safety, urban arterials, livable streets, GIS 19

  • Harvey and Aultman-Hall 3

    INTRODUCTION 1 2 A growing body of research agrees that the built environment design of urban streetscapes has an 3 important and traditionally misunderstood effect on traffic safety. Highway engineering in rural 4 environments traditionally stresses the importance of clear zones on either side of a roadway to 5 provide long sight lines and leeway for driver error and recovery (1). In contrast, recent studies 6 in urban settings suggest that human scale streetscapes, which are smaller and more narrowly 7 enclosed by buildings and trees, may reduce crash risk by narrowing drivers fields of view and 8 encouraging slower, less risky driving behavior (211). Enclosure is the collective effect of large 9 objects surrounding a street, chiefly buildings and trees, to define the spatial extents of a 10 streetscape and restrict long sight lines; it is what some urban designers say makes a street feel 11 like an outdoor room (12) (Figure 1). Small and enclosed streetscapes are also consistent with 12 a host of livability goals, including increased land use density, walkability, and urban forestry 13 (13, 14). Traffic safety benefits offer yet another rationale for more densely developed 14 streetscapes, especially along urban arterials where high level of service for vehicular traffic 15 must be accommodated alongside complex land uses and design of vital public spaces. 16

    17 FIGURE 1 Examples of Open Versus Enclosed Streetscapes. 18 19

    To objectively investigate the effects of streetscape design on livability performance 20 measures such as traffic safety we use a GIS-based method for block-by-block measurement of 21 fundamental design characteristicse.g. width, height, continuity of edgesforming a 22 streetscape skeleton that is elemental to user perceptions of spatial scale and enclosure. The GIS-23 based approach offers greater collection efficiency and measurement consistency compared with 24 manual auditing methods traditionally used to measure streetscape design (13, 15, 16). It also 25 offers more direct and spatially discrete measurements than built environment design proxies 26 based on from zoning, land use districts, or roadway characteristics such as the number travel 27 lanes (7, 17). Measurement of streetscapes at the resolution of individual blocks is particularly 28 important in urban settings, where there can be substantial design heterogeneity within 29 neighborhoods or along corridors. Spatially aggregate built environment measurements may not 30 adequately reveal the implications of design anomalies, such as vacant lots, along individual 31

  • Harvey and Aultman-Hall 4

    street segments. GIS-based measurement of streetscape skeletons strikes a practical balance 1 between resolution of measured features and the feasibility of assessing large samples of 2 streetscapes. 3

    This study investigates the safety implications of streetscape design at the sites of more 4 than 240,000 traffic crashes throughout New York City. Logistic regression models demonstrate 5 that crash severity was affected by streetscape size and enclosure variables based on the massing 6 of surrounding buildings and trees. Crashes were less likely to be severeresulting in injury or 7 deathif they occurred in smaller or more enclosed streetscapes. Arterial classification was 8 associated with greater propensity for severe crashes, likely as a result of higher vehicle speed. 9 As such, streetscape design may provide a useful countermeasure for balancing the safety risks 10 posed by arterials. Infill development and tree planting to create smaller, more enclosed 11 streetscapes along urban arterials may improve traffic safety by encouraging more responsible 12 driving, complementary to traditional traffic calming techniques. 13 14 LITERATURE REVIEW 15 16 The traditional framework associating roadside design with traffic safety is rooted in rural and 17 suburban settings with ample space to either side of roadways and limited diversity of users. It 18 encourages consistently large shoulders and clear zones to allow ample space for recovery from 19 potential driver error or reaction to unforeseen circumstances, such as an animal darting into the 20 roadway (1) (Figure 2, A). More open space along roadsides provides an opportunity for drivers 21 to regain control of a wayward vehicle before crashing into a fixed object. 22

    Unfortunately, such designs can also encourage higher speeds and riskier driving 23 behavior, negatively affecting traffic safety. This is particularly problematic along urban 24 arterials, which attempt to accommodate both heavy vehicular traffic and non-vehicular users 25 who are vulnerable to high-speed crashes. Urban arterials also have limited space for roadside 26 clear zones due to dense land uses and multimodal infrastructure such as sidewalks and bicycle 27 lanes. Traffic safety along urban arterials is, therefore, largely dependent on encouraging drivers 28 to maintain moderate speeds and avoid risky behavior. Rather than assume dense and complex 29 urban roadside environments are a hindrance to traffic safety, as the traditional framework 30 suggests, it is pertinent to investigate how enclosed streetscapes, which are often inherent to 31 urban settings, may instead improve safety by encouraging responsible driver behavior. 32

    An alternative framework relating roadside design to traffic safety, potentially better 33 suited to urban settings, posits that drivers are more aware of potential hazards and engage in less 34 risky behavior when their environment is more constrained and offers less design consistency 35 (Figure 2, B) (37). It takes advantage of driver agency to respond to environmental conditions 36 with slower speeds, improving capacity to react to unpredictable events and reducing the severity 37 of crashes when they do take place. This framework may be particularly appropriate for urban 38 settings where complex traffic patterns and diversity of road users make speed a dominating 39 factor in crash severity (1822). 40

    More enclosed built environment designs with minimal building setbacks, smaller spaces 41 between buildings, and substantial street tree canopy, are also consistent with livability goals 42 promoting walkability, vibrant public spaces, and urban forestry (13). Determining how smaller 43 and more enclosed streetscapes are beneficial to traffic safety may eliminate the perceived 44 tradeoff between clear zones for traffic safety prioritization and human scale streetscapes for 45 livability. By using compact streetscape design to encourage responsible driving behavior it may 46

  • Harvey and Aultman-Hall 5

    be possible for heavy vehicular traffic flows, bicyclists, pedestrians, and dense land uses to more 1 safely share arterial corridors as livable urban spaces. 2

    3 FIGURE 2 Contrasting Frameworks for Safety Design. 4 5

    Existing research has demonstrated the safety benefits of smaller, more enclosed 6 streetscapes in a generalized sense, but has inadequately investigated the effect of specific 7 streetscape design characteristics. Such studies have drawn on land use and roadway data as 8 indicators of built environment design rather than direct measurements of the streetscape. 9 Several papers by Dumbaugh have evaluated built environment-safety relationships using parcel-10 level land use data aggregated by census units (3, 5, 8, 11, 22). He and his coauthors consistently