01-31-2001 CC Workshop Agenda
City Commission
Workshop Meeting
~'.,'1"~,...'..,,.;,,~.1~L'~~, ;
2999 NF 191st Street Suite ':;00 Aventura. Fr, 111 RO
January 31, 2001
1 :00 P.M.
AGENDA
1. Board Reports
2. Vendor and Solicitors Ordinance *
3. Founders Park Gazebo*
4. Land Purchase Update
5. Charter Revision Board Update
6. Lehman Causeway Safety Study Update*
7. US Senate Legislation (Commissioner Berger)*
8. Inter-Generation Programs (Commissioner Berger)
9. Capital Punishment (Commissioner Berger)
10. Government Center Sculpture (Mayor Snyder)
* Back-up Information Exists
Next Meeting: February 27,2001
. Mixed UselTown Center Concepts
. Cultural Center Report
. Community Recreation Center Update
This meeting is open to the public. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, all persons
who are disabled and who need special accommodations to participate in this meeting because of that
disability should contact the Office of the City Clerk, 305-466-8901. not later than two days prior to such
proceeding.
"
CITY OF AVENTURA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Commission
FROM:
DATE: November 7,200
SUBJECT: Ordinance Prohibiting Right-of-Way Vendors and Solicitors
~,!
1st Reading November 14, 2000 City Commission Meeting Agenda Item ~
2nd Reading January 2, 2001 City Commission Meeting Agenda Item ~-t.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached Ordinance. which
prohibits right-of-way vendors and solicitors on certain roads in the City.
The prohibited areas are as follows:
(3iscayne Bouie ~0; J
Ives Dairy Road
Miami Gardens Drive
William Lehman Causeway
Aventura Boulevard
N.E. 207'h Street
N.E. 213'h Street
Country Club Drive
Due to traffic safety concerns, the attached Ordinance was prepared by the City
Attorney's office.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
EMS/aca
Attachment
CC0933.00
ORDINANCE NO. 2001-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF A VENTURA,
FLORIDA, AMENDING THE CITY CODE OF THE CITY
OF AVENTURA BY CREATING SECTION 48-20
"PROHIBITION OF RIGHT-OF-WAY VENDORS AND
SOLICITORS ON CERTAIN ROADS" OF ARTICLE II
"USE OF RIGHT-OF-WAY; PARKING; OTHER
REGULATIONS" OF CHAPTER 48 "VEHICLES; USE
OF RIGHT-OF-WAY; PARKING; AND OTHER
REGULATIONS;" PROHIBITING RIGHT-OF-WAY
VENDORS AND SOLICITORS ON CERTAIN STREETS
IN THE CITY; CREATING A DEFINITION FOR THE
TERM "RIGHT-OF-WAY VENDOR AND SOLICITOR;"
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
INCLUSION IN CODE; PROVIDING FOR PENALTY;
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
IT IS HEREBY ORDAINED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
A VENTURA, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City Code of the City of Aventura is hereby amended by creating
Section 48-20 "Prohibition of Right-of-Way Vendors and Solicitors On Certain Roads" of
Article II "Use of Right-of-Way; Parking; Other Regulations" of Chapter 48 "Vehicles; Use of
Right-of- Way; Parking; and Other Regulations" to read as follows:
Section 48-20. Prohibition of Right-of-Way Vendors and Solicitors On
Certain Roads.
A. Findings; Purpose; Intent.
(1) The City Commission of the City of A ventura desires to adopt an
ordinance prohibiting right-of-way vendors and solicitors on
certain streets located in the City because such vendors and
solicitors pose a danger to themselves and the public at large by
interfering with the safe movement of normal vehicular traffic; and
(2) Based upon statistics collected by the Surface Transportation
Policy Project, on average, 565 pedestrians are killed every year in
Florida (of which 99 are in Miami-Dade County), and the Miami-
Fort Lauderdale area is one of the most dangerous areas in the
United States for pedestrians; and
Ordinance No. 2001-
Page 2
(3) Numerous types of right-of-way vendors and solicitors operate or
may seek to operate within the City of Aventura, including, but not
limited to, children, adolescents and adults who seek to collect
money for school and community activities; vendors who sell
flowers, newspapers and other products and people who seek
donations or to distribute information; and
(4) Right-of-way vendors and solicitors approach motorists and
passengers in motor vehicles engaged in travel on roads, and are
particularly susceptible and vulnerable to serious injury or death
due to the speed and number of motorists who operate vehicles on
busy roads within the City; and
(5) Roads are primarily designed for vehicular traffic and are not
suited to safely accommodate right-of-way vendors and solicitors;
and
(6) Over the past ten years, at least ten right-of-way vendors have been
killed by motor vehicles in the South Florida area, and many more
have been seriously injured (including a Sun Sentinel newspaper
vendor who was struck by a car while carrying papers on U.S. 1
and Broward Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale on July 30, 2000); and
(7) The presence of right-of-way vendors and solicitors interferes with
the safe movement of normal vehicular traffic; and
(8) The road network in the City is substantially burdened by a high
volume of traffic; and
(9) It is the intention of the City Commission to use the least
restrictive means to advance the significant governmental interests
of traffic safety and public safety and, consequently, the City Staff
has analyzed each of the major roads within the City and has
determined that the roads listed in subsection C below, pose the
greatest threat to traffic and public safety in reference to activities
and use by right-of-way vendors and solicitors, and therefore the
City Commission has determined that the prohibition on right-of-
way vendors and solicitors shall be limited to those listed roads;
and
2
Ordinance No. 2001-_
Page 3
(10) It is the finding of the City Commission that many other alternative
channels of communication (other than right-of-way vending and
solicitation) exist for persons who seek to exercise their First
Amendment freedoms, such as, but by no means limited to,
solicitation of funds or distribution of literature through the mail or
at alternate locations (such as houses of worship, shopping areas
and special events); the sale and/or distribution of newspapers
through home delivery, vending machines and retail stores; and the
sale of items of all kinds at retail stores, through the internet and
from vending machines; and
(II) The City Commission desires to preserve and protect the personal
safety and quality of life of its residents and of those who use City
streets, both pedestrians and motorists alike; and
(12) The City Commission has reviewed the proposed regulations
provided by this Section and finds that such regulations
accomplish the purposes intended while utilizing the least
restrictive method possible; and
(13) The City Commission finds that it is in the best interests of the
residents of the City to adopt this Section.
B. Definitions.
As used in this Section, the following term(s) have the meaning set forth herein,
except as otherwise indicated by the context.
Right-of-Wav Vendor or Solicitor. Any person who sells or offers for sale any
thing or service of any kind, or who seeks any donation of any kind, or who
personally hands to or seeks to transmit by hand or receive by hand any thing or
service of any kind, whether or not payment in exchange is required or requested,
to any person who operates or occupies a motor vehicle of any kind, which
vehicle is engaged in travel on or within any portion of any of the roads
designated in subsection C, whether or not such vehicle is temporarily stopped in
the travel lanes of the road. The term shall not apply to any person who merely
holds or displays a sign lawfully permitted to be displayed by a person, as long as
there is no entry by such person or sign into any portion of the roadway or its
median. Further, this term shall not apply to official citations or notices provided
pursuant to governmental authority.
3
Ordinance No. 2001-
Page 4
C. Prohibition.
(1) It is a violation of this Section for any person to act as a Right-
of-Way Vendor or Solicitor in, at or upon Biscayne Boulevard,
Ives Dairy Road, Miami Gardens Drive, Country Club Drive,
William Lehman Causeway, Aventura Boulevard, Northeast
207th Street, and Northeast 213 Street (including the swales
and medians abutting such roads).
(2) No person shall act as a Right-of-Way Vendor or Solicitor in,
at or upon any of the roads described in (1) above, including
the swales and medians abutting such roads.
Section 2. Severabilitv. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable and
if any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid
or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, sentences,
clauses, and phrases of this Ordinance but they shall remain in effect, it being the legislative intent
that this Ordinance shall stand notwithstanding the invalidity of any part.
Section 3. Inclusion in the Code. It is the intention of the City Commission, and it is
hereby ordained that the provisions of this Ordinance shall become and be made a part of the Code
of the City of A ventura; that the sections of this Ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to
accomplish such intentions; and that the word "Ordinance" shall be changed to "Section" or other
appropriate word.
Section 4. Penalty. Any person who violates any provisions of this Ordinance shall, upon
conviction, be punished by a fine not to exceed $500.00 or imprisonment in the County jail not to
exceed sixty (60) days or both such fine and imprisonment. Each day that a violation continues
shall be deemed a separate violation. This Ordinance shall also be subject to enforcement under the
4
Ordinance No. 2001-
Page 5
Local Government Code Enforcement Act, Chapter 162, F.S., as amended, and City Code Section
2-331, et. seq., as amended. Enforcement may also be by suit for declaratory, injunctive or other
appropriate relief in a court of competent jurisdiction.
Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon adoption
on second reading.
The foregoing Ordinance was offered by Commissioner Perlow, who moved its adoption on
first reading. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Rogers-Libert, and upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Commissioner Arthur Berger
Commissioner Ken Cohen
Commissioner Harry Holzberg
Commissioner JeflTey M. Perlow
Commissioner Patricia Rogers- Libert
Vice Mayor Jay R. Beskin
~ayorArthurI. Snyder
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
no
yes
The foregoing Ordinance was offered by Commissioner
, who moved its adoption
on second reading. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
, and upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Commissioner Arthur Berger
Commissioner Ken Cohen
Commissioner Harry Holzberg
Commissioner JeflTey M. Perlow
Commissioner Patricia Rogers- Libert
Vice Mayor Jay R. Beskin
Mayor Arthur I. Snyder
PASSED AND ADOPTED on first reading this 14th day of November, 2000.
5
Ordinance No. 2001-
Page 6
PASSED AND ADOPTED on second reading this 2nd day of January, 2001.
ARTHUR L SNYDER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
TERESA M. SOROKA, CMC
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
CITY ATTORNEY
6
CITY OF AVENTURA
GOVERNMENT CENTER
2999 N.E. 191 ST STREET
SUITE 500
AVENTURA, FLORIDA 33180
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
November 27, 2000
Mr. Sean Cononie
Volunteer, The Homeless Voice
P.O. Box 292577
Davie, Florida 33329-2577
Re: Proposed Street Vendor Ordinance
Dear Mr. Cononie:
Thank you for your letter dated November 22, 2000 expressing opposition to the City of
Aventura's proposed street vendor ordinance. I have forwarded your letter to City Attorney,
David Wolpin, and the City Commission.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
~.
Eric M. 'Sor a
City Ma a er
EMSlaca
cc: City Commission (wi attachment)
David Wolpin, Esq., City Attorney (wi attachment)
CM0340-97
PHONE, 305-466-8910. FAX, 305-466-8919
11i23i2000 09:08 9540124
'6=0
~
[S
~
o
f?:!J
@
[?
~
Cep)' , .
r';;"'y .;
~'",,,.
[k
~
o
~
&
~
~
~
o
FIR~~
PAGE 01
P.O. BOX 292577
Davie, Florida 33329-2577
Office: 954-925-6466
fax: 954-964-0124
E-mail: HPEOPLEUSA@AOLCOM
~:;,U'.~',;i""~ .'
TO: The City of A ventura
From: The Homeless Voice Newspaper
Date: November 23, 2000
Re: Street Vendors
cc' -C-l~
CO........,S~ tl.
. v(l.\.A
~V, oJ .....,..l~
fJ
Please make copies and distribute this to your City
Council. I thank you for understanding our position on
the issue of street vendors. Our work for the poor
'Y~ld be strictly hindered unless some type of friendly
.;$iN~ment can be made. Happy Thanksgiving
.. ';,':j~~Cononie
''Vp:lunteer, The Homeless Voice
11/23/2000 03;08
3640124
FIR~~
PAGE 02
P.O. BOX 292577
Davie, Florida 33329-2577
()ffice;954-925-6466
Fax; 954-964-0124
E-mail: HPEOPLEUSA@AOL.COM
D=o
[g
[b
[p
o
f?[J
@
November 22, 2000
Dear Mr. Soroka:
First, I would like you to understand the importance of our work at the Homeless Voice Homeless
Shelter la<:ated in Hollywood. We have serviced your city at least 38 times in the last eight months of
the year 2000. four calls came in to us from your Police Department and the rest of the calls came in
ftom Hospnals and other social service agencies. In fact, in our newspaper, December's issue your
police department is displayed on the front page" Aventura Police help Homeless Woman" Second I
would like you to understand the following facts before your assist your cil)' in making a very bad
decision on the topic of street vendors.
[Pq
rn,/c:
(~}'::,
cj5:',""
lli
rn
,.. You may make a city ordinance that is narrow by removing the vendors from the m.ain streets,
.,.+\how:~ver the cil)' is to small and your city must gives us other means that are similar in revenue to
. te the Homeless Voice Newspaper, as well as other means to distribute free press. The
ffi~s can be proven that our means to distribute the same amount of press will be strictly
"'. :W'pushing us to go to the inner city in residential areas.
estonjust passed an ordinance to do the same behavior, and we are negotiating a
"th lbe ACLU to allow US to distribute the newspapers at public locations and not on
'Sfriiets. The cil)' may purchase the papers for a large fee so we do not have to file action to
~:~cess to better intersectlons.
:,..:,,,',:,,,
J~~;jJ,\'il':a safety issue, when tbe city forces vendors to go to intersections tbat are less safe, that
. t~ii1te more training for the vendors. At least the major intersections have large medians, which
".&eate safety barriers for the vendors. Larger intersections are safer because of better traffic devices
that keep vendors safer. If tills ordinance is passed and the independent Contractors are injured at less
safe intersections this makes the city liable. I write this to you as an advocate for the homeless, there
are many vendors of the Herald and Sun- Sentinel who are homeless and they have a right to sell
newspapers, however this ordinance will create a danger to the vendors.
o
~
As the city of Weston bas already leamed, taking the vendors off the main streets has caused chaos
in the middle of residential neighborhoods. We only did the City of Weston with their new ordinance
for a period of two days and the city hall was blasted with calls from residents who were irate that the
vendors were in front of schools, in the middle of the inner neighborhoods, angry that people were
approached in their car at long stops signs, andjoggers as well as walkers were approached to buy
the Homeless Voice.
&
~
~
m
o
With Weston's narrow tailored ordinance, it will furce our vendors to go to heavily public places,
such as businesses on public easements, bank exits, city hall and any other public locations such as
parks and centers.
These vendors have the absolute right to distribute ftee press as well as first amendment rights of
approaching peopled to buy any type oiftee press. I am nor just writing this letter just for the
. . .. " because the Constitution was written to protect issues
ere will the circulation of free press will be challenged
11/23/2000 09:08
9540124
FIR~'
PAGE 03
Navember 23, 2000
Page 2
by OUr news papers as well as the major brand names and churches who distribute the good news of
the Lord or other religious institutions as they do in the City of Lauder hill.
We service your city now and will do in the future even if you pass such an Unconstitutional City
ordinance. Please remember the ACLU represents our organization. Many other brilliant lawyers also
represent the brand name newspapers. You are taking money from the poorest of the poor by
restricting the sell of the newspapers. Damages will be included such as loss wages, constitutional
issues, as well any other remedies available. This will cost your taxpayers a lot ofmQney for wrong
judgement from your city. Can your city afford to take money from the poorest of the poor and
afford the damages?
I will suggest to you., that we will remove our vendors form the roadways if concessions are made,
qnickly and economically feasible to all parties who are concerned. Lets face that tact your city
never had a problem with vendors until the Homeless Voice sold our papers for a period of7 hours.
The word Homeless is not something that is perceived as good for your conununity by the actions of
your city trying to pass such an ordinance. If your city decided to allow the other vendors to continue
to sell their papers in the busiest streets, we will pull our people off your slreels. This is a repeated
experience to us, anytime we move our Homeless Voice vendors in to a city, the city tries to push
these unfair codes. Hollywood was faced with making a similar decision but was faced with legal
action, and the city council decided to do what was in the best interest of the vendors and allowed
them to continue to sell their publications. The City Council stood up for the constitution and
understood they would be faced with heavy lawsuits. Our vendors were already removed fonn your
city for selling the paper, and damages have been adding up and will cominue to add up until your
city decides to settle with us. So far the damages have totaled 19 days at $650.00 a day. As I stated,
we will remove our vendors if the city makes concessions and purchases as many as $50,000.00
worth of Homeless Voice newspaper:;. At that time, we will ask merchants to moke our papers
available free of charge in your city. We will also bave the Homeless Voice available at city
buildings that your citizens can pick up free of charge. The fee would be good for two years and then
we would expect your city to purchase 1500 c<lpies a month for the next ten years. That money for
tbe next ten years will support our shelter. Keep in mind every Homeless Voice sold helps keep our
shelter funded so we can continue to help keep homeless people off your city streets. If you were to
pass rhis ordinance you would not only be affecting the poorest of Ibe poor but you would also be
preventing the 9 homeless families and 2 I small children we currently house, as well as the other 90
individuals we have staying at our shelter. Please contact me regarding this settlement. Please also
remember our setVices is a value to your community as well as many communities in Neighboring
county Broward.
This lener is for settlement putpose
a living selling items at street co ers.
and for the advocacy of other homeless vendors who make
~~ngYOUinA
()
onome
Volunteer for the Homeless Voice
CC: Michael Stoop., National Coalition for the Homeless, Nationat Street Newspaper Association
Cc: Laura Carey, the Broward Coalition for the Homeless
CC: The Herald
CC: The Sun-Sentinel
CC: James Benjamin ACLU
CC: John David, attorney for the Helping People In America Sheltot
CC: City Commission for the City of Aventura
CC: Sherrie Blisko, compliance officer for the Shelter
CC: Barry Sacbarnw, President of Free Assembly Resource Fund
(
MEAN SlREE1S
PWES1RIAN SAfElY ANO REfORrvI Of
nlE NA110N'S lRANSPOR1A1\ON lAW
flOR\OJ\
~U~~~(~
T~~H\PO~TmJOH
POU(V
P~OJW
eNV
w I RON
ORKINCM!:NTAL
G R 0 uP"
,
~.
Acknowledgments
Principal authors of Mean Streets were Brian A. Cohen, Richard Wiles, and Christopher Campbell of Environmental
Working Group, and Don Chen, Jill Kruse, and James Corless of the Surface Transportation Policy Project (STPP).
Molly Evans designed and produced the report. Allison Daly and Laura Olsen coordinated the release of Mean
Streets.
We wish to thank the following individuals for their review of Mean Streets in draft form: Ellen Vanderslice, Anne
Weaver, Ann Herschfang, Katherine Shriver, Mary Pat Lawlor, Randy Wade, John Kaehny, Jon Orcutt, John Will-
iams, Bill Wilkinson, Charlie Komanoff, Clarence Ditlow, and Allen Greenberg. Thanks to Minnie Baskerville and
Jeff Wilkins of the U.S. Department of Transportation for their assistance with the FMIS"database.
Thanks to the following individuals at STPP for their reviews and editorial assistance during preparation of this
report: Hank Dittmar, Roy Kienitz, Laura Olsen, and Bianca DeLille. Jackie Savitz, Sara Savitt and Bill Walker of
EWG also provided editorial assistance.
Mean Streets was made possible by grants to Environmental Working Group from the Surdna Foundation, the En-
ergy Foundation, the Bullitt Foundation, and the Joyce Foundation; and grants to STPP from the Nathan Cummings
Foundation, the Energy Foundation, the George Gund Foundation, the Joyce Foundation, the Martin Foundation,
the James c. Penney Foundation, Prince Charitable Trusts, the Surdna Foundation, and the Rockefeller Brothers
Fund. The opinions expressed in this report are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of
the supporters listed above. Needless to say, any errors of fact or interpretation are the responsibility of the au-
thors.
Cover Photo Credit: Larry Sillen. Photo depicts one of a series of street scenes created by concerned New Yorkers
in 1997.
Mean Streets Copyright @ April 1997 by the Environmental Working Group/The Tides Center.
All rights reserved.
Manufactured in the United States of America. Printed on chlorine-free, recycled paper.
Environmental Working Group
The Environmental Working Group is a nonprofit environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C.
The Environmental Working Group is a project of the Tides Center, a California Public Benefit Corporation based
in San Francisco that provides administrative and program support services to nonprofit programs and projects.
This and many other reports are available on the World Wide Web at <www.ewg.org>.
Kenneth A. Cook, President
Mark B. Childress, Vice President for Policy
Richard Wiles, Vice President for Research
Environmental Working Group
1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 600
Washington, DC 20009
202-667-6982 (phone) . info@ewg.org (e-mail)
Surface Transportation Policy Project
STPP is a nonprofit coalition of roughly 175 groups devoted to ensuring that transportation policy and investments
help conserve energy, protect environmental and aesthetic quality, strengthen the economy, promote social equity,
and make communities more livable.
Hank Dittmar, Executive Director
STPP
1100 17th Street, N.W. 10th Floor
Washington, DC 20036
202-166-26~6 (pho:1e) . ~trp@tr'l_h<;"~ct.oq (e~n:JiD
/";
c__
'----.J
Participating Organizations
The following organizations participated in the rei ease of Mean Streets:
Alaska Center for the Environment
Alabama Citizen Action
Montgomery Transportation Coalition
Arizona Citizen Action
STPP - Northern California
STPP - Los Angeles
Environmental Working Group - DC
Environmental Working Group - CA
Colorado PIRG
Florida Consumer Action Network
Alliance for Modern Transit & Livable Communities
Georgia Transportation Alliance
Pedestrians Education Driver Safety
Hoosier Environmental Council
Pedestrian Advocate
Transport Planner of Greater Portland
Center for Neighborhood Technology
Sustain
Marian County Alliance of Neighborhood Associations
Citizen Action
Coalition for the Advancement of Regional Transporta-
tion
Conservation Law Foundation
Sierra Club, Maryland
NJ PIRG
PEDS - Pedestrians Educating Drivers on Safety
Bike Federation of Wisconsin
Tracy-Williams Consulting
Philly Walks
Natural Resources Council of Maine
Ecology Now
Citizen Action Nebraska ."
Western Michigan Environmental Action Coalition
New Jersey Citizen Action
Program Development Consultants
Transportation Alternatives
Tri-State Transportation Campaign
Walk Austin
Sierra Club, Ohio
Pedestrian Transportation Program
Vermont GrassRoutes
Portland Office of Transportation
Willamette Pedestrian Coalition
Citizen Action Pennsylvania
Alt-Trans
Clean Alr Council
NOW Bike
Sierra Club, Rhode Island
New Transportation Alliance
South Carolina Coastal Conservation League
Friends of Pathways
Greater Portland (ME) Council of Governments
To order a copy
Copies of this report are available at a cost of $20.00, plus $3.00 shipping and handling and 6% sales tax for sales
in the District of Columbia. Please send check or money order to:
Environmental Working Group
1718 Connecticut Avenue, N.W. Suite 600
Washington, DC 20009
202-667-6982 (phone) . info@ewg.org (e-mail)
World Wide Web
This and many other EWG publications are available on the World Wide Web at www.ewg.org
Mean Streets
Pedestrian Safety in
Florida
Executive Summary
Hundreds of millions of dollars are
spent every year to make OUf roads
safer, yet we are failing to ensure the
safety of all of us who engage in the
most basic form of transportation -
walking. Millions of people in Ameri-
cans walk - to school, to work, to the
store, or just around the block for a
little bit of exercise. But our findings
indicate that every year from 1986 to
1995, approximately)64 pedeStiiaO:S
are-KIllea; anall, 400 are injured by
aut~~b[res in. Florida. This carnage
is :ittributable only in part to individual
misjudgment - a failure to "look both
ways'! as children are taught. These
deaths and injuries are also the conse-
quence transportation system gone
badly wrong - a system focused on
making the streets safe for cars instead
of making communities safe for
people. Indeed, in Florida, people
are more likeiy to get killed by a car
while walking than they are to be shot
and killed by a stranger with a gun.
In Mean Streets, ~e analyzed the
failures of this system, taking a close
looR-a:Cpedestriarf fatalities',' ind-
spendih'g-oiio-ur streets~' roads, and
highways - the billions of dollars of
spending that frequently makes the
roads less safe for pedestrians. Our
analysis of Federal Highway Adminis-
tration (FHWA) and National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)
data found that in Florida:
E>JVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP/
SURF.ACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT
Numerous Pedestrians Are Killed
Each Year by Automobiles
. Approximately 564 pedestrians
die every year in Florida after
being hit by cars (Table 3). This
is a significant pubiic heaith and
safety problem. And for every
pedestrian who is kil1ed by an
automobile, more than 20 are
injured, meaning that approxi-
mately 11,400 pedestrians are
injured by automobiles each
year.
Highway Safety Money Is Not
Being Used To Protect
Pedestrians
. This is a significant public health
and safety P~destrians ac~ounted
for 20 perc';;:;rofall-';:;otor ve~
fi]cle:rel~ted (,ieatl)s inflorida
IromI986,1995, yet only 1.3
percent of federal highway safety
funds were spent on pedestrian
safety in the state during that
time (Table 1)1 The remaining
98.7% of this money was spent
on automotive safety "improve-
ments" such as road widening
and other efforts to remove the
obstacles to more rapid traffic
flow. An industry manual pro-
vides the typical highway
engineer's definition of a pedes-
trian: a traffic "flow interruption".
Traffic safety features are de-
signed to allow drivers to move
at higher speeds which often
makes the roads even less safe
for pedestrians.
Gf
."
Senior Citizens Are At The
Highest Risk
. Senior citizens (persons age 65
and over) comprise 18 percent of
the population in Florida, but
aCCOl,lnt for 24 percent of all
pedestrian fatalities - meaning
that seniors are 1.3 times as
likely to be killed by an al,ltomo-
bile as members of the general
public (Table 4). As a group,
senior citizens are particularly
dependent on safe streets for
walking because many of them
no longer drive.
Many Fatalities Occur On
Neighborhood Streets
. Almost half - 49 percent - of
all pedestrian deatn15y'al.lfbmo-
bile in Florid'occms on neigh-
borhood streets (Table 6). The
problem is not that pedestrians
are walking in the wrong places,
but that OUf local streets are be-
coming spe"dways- designed
to accommodate more cars pass-
ing though, not the people who
live, walk, and play in their com-
munities.
Note
r~
The Most Dangerous
Metropolitan Areas For Walking
In Florida
The high rate of pedestrian fatali-
ties is a statewide problem. In some
communities however, the problem is
worse than most. The three counties
with the most pedestrian fataHdesin
Florida are DaCle, Broward, and
Hillsborough (Table 5). These coun-
ties liowever, may not be the most
dangerous places to walk, bl,lt instead
may have more walkers.
In this report, for the first time, we
present a list of the most dangerous
communities in which to walk. To
create rankings that account for the
number of walkers in each city, we
created a 'pedestrian fatality index' by
comparing pedestrian fatality rates in
metropolitan areas with the level of
pedestrian activity in those communi-
ties. Pedestrian activity was estimated
based on data from the U.S. Census on
the nl,lmber of people who walk to
work.
The higher the pedestrian fatality
index (which is normalized on a scale
of 1 to 100), the more dangerous it is
to walk in a particular community.
!g~_,qlQ.sLd_angerous.metro, areas.,in the
state for walking are Fort Pierce, FL
and Fort Lal,lderdale-Hollywood-
Pompano Beach, FL. The safest are
Gainesville, FL and Tallahassee, FL. it
is approximately 3.2 times more dan-
gerous to walk in Fort Pierce, FL than
in Gainesville, FL (Table 7).
'This includes funding for dedicated pedestrian projects only, such as installing speed
bumps, constructing roundabouts (a form of traffic circle), diverting non-local drivers
away from local streets, changing pavement surfaces, and narrowing the roadway. It
does not include funds for a1)to safety projects, like traffic signals, that have an incidental
eFfect c,n pedcstri8T1s.
2
MEAN STREETS: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND REFORM OF THE NATION'S TRANSPORTATION LAW
e'"V
W 0 R
L
IR.ONMENT~p_
t-:: I N G G R. 0 l.
,1'''
-f
,
I
o
~ urfaee
Transportation
P oliey
P roj eet
Pedestrian Safety and Highway Spending in
Florida
Table 1. Pedestrians do not get their fair share of
transportation safety money in Florida.
Percentage of All Auto Related Fatalities Involving Pedestrians:
Percentage of Federal Funding Spent on Safety*
Percentage of Federal Safety Funding Spent on
Dedicated Pedestrian Projects*"'
20%
1.2%
1.3%
Table 3. Pedestrian Fatalities in Florida, 1986-1995.
Average Annual Pedestrian Fatalities:
564
Estimated Average # of Incapacitating Injuries per Year: 4,796
Estimated Average # of Non.lncapac. Injuries per Year: 6,630
Estimated Annual Pedestrian Fatality Rate, per 100,000: 4.3
Percent of All Auto.Related Fatalities Involving Pedestrians: 20%
In 1995, FBI data show there were 173 homicides commited by
strangers with guns in Florida. A pedestrian in Florida is 3.3 times
more likely to be killed by a car than by a stranger with a gun.
Table 5. Counties in Florida with the most pedestrian
fatalities, 1986-1995.
Average Annual Percent of all Traffic
Number of Fatalities Involving
County Pedestrian Deaths Pedestrians
~ 99 30%
Il[QJI;l,,,:<J 57 28%
Hillsborough 38 20%
Palm Beach 32 17%
Pinellas 31 30%
Table 2. A small fraction of federal road safety
money is spent to protect pedestrians in Florida.
Total Highway Spending (1992.1996)
Total Safety Spending-:
Safety Spending on Dedicated
Pedestrian Projects**; Y'
$4,240,000,000
$50.881.000
$673,000
Table 4. Compared to the general public, senior
citizens are 1.3 times more likely to be killed in
pedestrian accidents in Florida.
Percentage of Pedestrian Fatalities
Involving Senior Citizens:
Percentage of the Population Aged 65
and over;
Relative Risk for Senior Citizens;
Average number of pedestrian fatalities
involving senior citizens per year:
23.8%
18.3%
1.3
134
Table 6. 49 percent of all pedestrian fatalities in
Florida occur on neighborhood streets.
Road Type
Major Roads:
Interstates:
F reewa ys/Exp ressways:
Primary Arteries:
Neighborhood Streets:
Minor Arteries:
Collectors:
Local Roads:
Percent of Pedestrian
Traffic Fatalities
6%
26 %
14 %
16 %
6%
26 %
Table 7. The most dangerous metropolitan areas for pedestrians in Florida p986-19~!i1.
Average Annual Percent of all Percent of
Number of Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities Safety Spending
Pedestrian Fatality Rate involving on Dedicated
Metropolitan Area Deaths per 100,000 Pedestrians Pedestrian Projects""
Percent of
Population
Walking
to Work
Pedestrian
Fatality
Index
(1 .100)1
99
90
89
1) Fort Pierce, FL 11 4.6 17% 0.0%
2) ~ Lau~rdale~~Hollywood--pompano 57 4.6 28% 0.0%
3) Fort MyershCape Corai, FC-' 16 4.9 20% 0.0%
1.7%
1.8%
2.0%
State Average 564 4.3 20% 0.0% 2.5% 62
. Spending from ISTEA's safety program, known as the Surface Transportation Program Safety Set-aside,
*- This includes funding for dedicated pedestrian projects only, and does not include funds for auto safety spending projects, like traffic signals,
that have an incidental effect on pedestrians.
+ The pedestrian fatality index is calculated on a scale of 1 to 100, with 1 being the safest city for walking and 100 the most dangerous.
Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration data.
P-edestrian fc'3ii::./ data IS fror:l 1 ~~5^- t995;",sfJcnding data i~ frcm 1 ~~?, ')96
The Environmental Working Group is a non-profit environmental research organization based in Washington, D.C.
Phone: (202) 667-6982 . Fax: (202) 232-2592' Email: info@ewg.org. Web: http://www.ewg.org
Pedestrian Safety in
Florida Metro Areas
~
5 urfaee
Transportation
Policy
P roj eet
Percent of Pedestrian
Population Fatality
Walking Index
to Work (1 .100)1
1.9% 82
2.7% 59
1.8% 90
2.0% 89
1.7% 99
2.4% 51
4.1% 31
2.6% 46
2.3% 77
1.9% 79
2.5% 73
2.7% 58
2.2% 78
3.5% 41
1.8% 85
3.6% 45
2.1% 67
3.2% 40
2.3% 64
2.0% 67
2.5% 62
~NY
~OR
,
IRONME:NT~?_
Klr">iC GROl.
Table 8. Pedestrian safety and highway spending for metropolitan areas in and around Florida.
Average Annual Percent of all Percent of
Number of Pedestrian Traffic Fatalities Safety Spending
Pedestrian Fatality Rate Involving on Dedicated
Metropolitan Area Deaths per 100,000 Pedestrians Pedestrian Projects"
Bradenton, FL 9 4.4 22% 0.4%
Daytona Beach. FL 16 4.5 19% 0.0%
y
Fort Lauderdale--Hollywood--Pompano 57 4.6 28% 0.0%
~-'--...-...._..-.,. ..-~--- ._'-".~-_..,--~.._--_...._.-.-
Fort Myers--Cape Coral, FL 16 4.9 20% 0.0%
Fort Pierce, FL 11 4.6 17% 0.0%
Fort Walton Beach, FL 5 3.4 20% 0.0%
Gainesville, FL 7 3.6 17% 0.0%
Jacksonville, FL 30 3.3 18% 0.0%
LakelandnWinter Haven, FL 20 4.9 18% 0.5%
Melbourne..Titusville..Palm Bay, FL 17 4.2 21% 0.0%
MiamiuHia!e~~2.iL 99 5.1 30% 0.0%
Naples, FL 6 4.4 14% 0.0%
Ocala, FL 9 4.7 13% 0.0%
Orlando, FL 43 4.0 21% 0.0%
Panama City, FL 5 4.3 21% 0.0%
Pensacola. FL 15 4.5 21% 0.0%
Sarasota, FL 10 3.8 24% 0.0%
Tallahassee, FL 8 3.6 16% 0.0%
TampanSt. Petersburg.-Clearwater, FL 84 4.1 22% 0.0%
West Palm BeachnBoca RatonuDelray 32 3.7 17% 0.0%
------_.~-------_._----._------
State Average 564 4.3 20% 1.3%
. Spending from ISTEA's safety program, known as the Surface Transportation Program Safety Set.aside.
U This includes funding for dedicated pedestrian projects only, and does not include funds for auto safety spending projects, like traffic signals,
that have an incidental effect on pedestrians.
t The pedestrian fatality index is calculated on a scale of 1 to 100, with 1 being the safest city for walking and 100 the most dangerous.
Source: Environmental Working Group. Compiled from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration data.
Pedestrian fatality data is from 1986.1995: spending data is from 1992.1996.
The :.nvironrnental Working Group is a non-prof:: environment,,: research organization based in \NJshington, D.C.
Phone: (202) 667-69S2 . Fax: (202) 232-2592' Email: info@ewg.org' Web: http://www.ewg.org
Chapter Two
The Path to Pedestrian Safety
How To Make Our Streets Safe
For Pedestrians
We know that we can make our
streets safer for pedestrians because
some communities are making it hap-
pen. The 1991 ISTEA legislation pro-
vides communities with important
planning tools that help to emphasize
safety considerations, require public
involvement in decision-making, sup-
port alternative modes of transporta-
tion such as bicycling, walking, and
transit, and provide dedicated funding
for transportation safety. While this
legislation must be strengthened and
improved, some communities are tak-
ing advantage of these programs and
funds to implement a variety of pedes-
trian safety measures, including:
. slowing down traffic (known as
traffic calming) through the use
of speed bumps, roundabouts,
changing pavement surfaces,
and other features;
. providing separate, protected
spaces for walkers,
. designing public spaces to be
more pedestrian-friendly (im-
proved crosswalks, sidewalks,
handrails for the infirm, special
pavements, etc.); and
. increasing public awareness of
pedestrian safety issues.
These programs work because they
solve the problem at its source: fixing
roads that are poorly designed for
pedestrians. Instead of blaming the
pedestrian for getting in the way, these
communities have created streets and
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP/
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT
neighborhoods that are inherently safer
for pedestrians.
Traffic Calming
Growing numbers of communities
are trying to make 'their residential
streets safer by forcing motorists to
slow down. "Traffic calming" refers to
the practice of designing streets to re-
duce vehicle speeds, ensure that drivers
are more careful, or take safer routes.
It includes narrowing the roadway,
diverting non-local drivers away from
local streets, changing pavement sur-
faces, installing speed humps, con-
structing roundabouts (a form of traffic
circle) and putting up stop signs.
These measures improve pedestrian
safety, and make public spaces more
conducive to pedestrian activity and
street life.
Traffic calming is being adopted in
growing numbers of communities
across America.2 Seattle's traffic calming
program involved the installation of
traffic circles. It produced a 77 to 91
percent reduction in traffic collisions.
Portland, Oregon also constructed traf-
fic circles and experienced a 58 percent
reduction in the number of reported
crashes (Zein 1997). Other traffic calm-
ing projects in communities from Long
Beach, California to Fairfax County,
Virginia, have reduced the risk to pe-
destrians in residential neighborhoods.3
Even more modest efforts have had
noticeable impacts on pedestrian safety.
In New York City, for example, streets
were painted with chevron stripes to
/,
."
5
make drivers think they are speeding in
an attempt to make them slow down
(Perez-Pesa 1996). And one New York
City neighborhood group, "Trees Not
Trucks," decided to combat neighbor-
hood truck traffic by getting police to
ticket offending drivers. The initiative
reduced truck traffic on local streets by
90 percent (Pierre-Pierre 1996).
Separate Spaces for Pedestrians
Another method of improving pe-
destrian safety is to provide walkers
with spaces that are protected from
vehicular traffic. This may involve
building sidewalks or developing walk-
ing paths that are completely indepen-
dent of street patterns. Some communi-
ties have built special pedestrian spaces
since the creation of ISTEA using En-
hancements funding, which includes
walking and bicycling among its eli-
gible activities.
Designing Pedestrian-Friendly
Neighborhoods
Many communities have also found
that a key to safe walking is to create
public spaces that attract pedestrians,
thereby establishing their presence and
causing traffic to slow down. The Los
Angeles Neighborhood Initiative (LANI),
for example, focused on pedestrian-
friendly design to revitalize several
commercial and transit corridors.
LAN!'s success was partly due to the
availability of ISTEA funds to support
downtown revitalization and mixed-use
development.4 Neighborhood groups
also developed community work plans
that included tree planting, installation
of lighting, parks, plazas, community
gardens, and benches (DiStefano and
Raimi 1996).
Another downtown improvement
project in Indianapolis, Indiana used
ISTEA funds to help fipance its Down-
town Corridor Improvements Project.
The project's goal is to reduce vehicu-
lar traffic and improve sidewalk infra-
structure, to produce a "pedestrian
friendly" streetscape that enhances the
historic integrity of the downtown
corridor (DiStefano and Raimi 1996).
Other projects focus more explic-
itly on pedest,-ian safety through road-
way design. A new project in Phoe-
nix, Arizona is aimed at creating "safe
pedestrian zones" in the low-income
Sunnyslope neighborhood. And in
one of Phoenix's central city neigh-
borhoods which is home to a high
concentration of older persons, city
workers have constnlcted broad cen-
ter medians to ease street crossings
and larger crosswalk signs to aid indi-
viduals who have poor eyesight
(DiStefano and Raimi 1996).
Public Awareness of Pedestrian
Safety Issues
The driving community does not
receive enough information about the
pedestrians with whom they share the
road. Many safety officials and citi-
zens fail to understand that measures
designed to increase vehicle speeds
often degrade the pedestrian environ-
ment. Vice President Gore"s National
Performance Review found that 58
percent of survey respondents favored
public education campaigns to im-
prove pedestrian safety, and a grow-
ing number of measures have been
established to promote awareness of
pedestrian safety issues. For example,
the Campaign to Make America
Walkable recently launched their dirty
dozen campaign (See Sidebar).' Un-
fortunately, the small amount of
money devoted to pedestrian safety
education is still dwarfed by the bil-
lions of dollars spent widening road-
ways in the name of motorist safety.
6
MEAN STREETS: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND REFORM OF THE NATION'S TRANSPORTATION LAW
;)
J
THE WALKER'S "DIRTY DOZEN"
The Campaign to Make America Walkable recently launched a public education campaign in which they
compiled pedestrian's top complaints about roadway safety and sidewalk design.
1. Missing sections of sidewalk, especially on
key walking routes
2. Bad sidewalk surfaces (uneven or broken
concrete, uplifted slabs over tree roots)
3. Misuse of sidewalks (e.g. vehicles parked
on sidewalk)
4. Bad sidewalk maintenance (overhanging
bushes or trees, unshoveled snow on
sidewalks)
5. Narrow sidewalks (no room for wheelchairs, or
for two people to walk side by side, utility
poles in the middle of a sidewalk).
6. Missing curb ramps
7. Poorly designed crossings of major streets,
;,.!,,~pecially near schools or shops
'.8.)Motorists not stopping for people in
crosswal ks ."
9. Barriers on potential walking routes
! 0, High traffic levels andlor high speeds,
i/ especially near schools or parks
,11) Motorists cutting through neighborhoods
'-to avoid busy arterial streets
12. Locations with a documented history of
crashes or near misses.
Source: The Campaign to Make America Walkable
Notes
2 Outside the U.S., traffic calming is also successful. The Insurance Corporation of British
Colombia (ICBC) reported that traffic calming efforts in the Greater Vancouver area
resulted in a 30 to 83 percent reduction in collisions. In York, England, the city
implemented a traffic calming plan that yielded a 40 percent decrease in all motor
vehicle-related casualties during the periods 1981-1985 and 1990-1994. Pedestrian
casualties fell by 36 percent (Cycletter, Bicycle Transportation Alliance, January 1997).
Other traffic calming efforts in the United Kingdom resulted in a 65-100 percent drop
in collisions, while efforts in Denmark, France and Germany were associated with a 60
percent drop. (Zein 1997).
3 In Long Beach, a traffic circle reduced traffic by 28 percent. Fairfax County used speed
humps, narrowed streets, and other measures to reduce traffic.
4 Transportation Enhancement and Federal Transit Administration Livable Communities
funds were used to support LAN!.
5 Vice President Gore knows these issues firsthand. Shortly before he joined then-
governor Bill Clinton's presidential campaign, his son Albert was struck by a car while
walking outside Baltimore's Camden Yards (home to the Baltimore Orioles). The
younger Albert suffered from serious injuries and lay in a coma for several days before
making a full recovery.
E>NlRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP/
SURF.~CE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT
7
."
8
MEAN STREETS: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND REFORM OF THE NATION'S TRANSPORTATION LAW
Chapter Three
ISTEA Reauthorization:
An Opportunity for Safer Streets
Few transportation agencies recog-
nize the importance of pedestrian
safety, and fewer still have taken ad-
vantage of existing tools to improve
conditions. At the federal level, many
tools can be found within ISTEA
which was designed to foster a ~ore
balanced transportation system that
includes mass transit, intercity rail, and
bicycle and pedestrian trails and paths,
as well as highways. ISTEA also tar-
gets funds towards specific national
goals, including environmental protec-
tion and public safety. But while
ISTEA created the safety set-aside pro-
gram with ample funds for capital
improvements, pedestrian safety has
not been treated as a federal priority
and state and local agencies have in-
vested little effort and few resources to
improve pedestrian safety.
Reauthorizing ISTEA - The
Nation's Transportation law
This year, Congress is poised to
reauthorize the 1991 lntermodal Sur-
face Transportation Efficiency Act
(ISTEA). This legislation will provide
over $150 billion dollars for states and
communities to spend on their trans-
portation systems over the next five
years - roads, bridges, public trans-
portation, and trails, pathways, and
spaces for those who walk and bike.
The highway lobby, known as the
"road gang," which includes road con-
tractors, automobile manufacturers,
truckers and even some state Depart-
ments of Transportation, is lobbying to
weaken the legislation, ensuring that
they get more money to build high-
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP/
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PR01ECT
ways, while less is spent to make
communities safe for walking, and
otherwise make America's transporta-
tion systems more sustainable.
The Road lobby's Efforts To
Weaken Transportation law,
Making Streets less Safe For
Pedestrians
The "road gang" is pushing hard
for legislation they support, such as
the Highways Only Transportation
Efficiency Act (HOTEA) and STEP 21
- that would make the existing pe-
destrian safety problem even worse.
These proposals would abolish exist-
ing environmental and safety pro-
grams, as well as the enhancement
program (which currently provides
funding for bicycle and pedestrian
activities), replacing them with a pro-
gram focused on roadbuilding and
maintenance that would strongly bias
transportation spending towards retro-
grade emphasis on highway construc-
tion.
The Clinton Administration
legislation
The Clinton Administration re-
cently released its ISTEA reauthoriza-
tion package, which was introduced
by Senators chafee and Moynihan as
S. 468. This legislation would main-
tain the basic structure of current law,
while increasing overall funding for
bicycle and pedestrian projects (via
an increase in funding for the En-
hancements program), and clean air
prograf!l."
, --,
,
9
Opportunities To Improve
Pedestrian Safety
Pedestrian safety should be recog-
nized as a national transportation safety
priority on par with automobile and
railroad safety programs. To acheive
this goal, Congress should:
(1) Preserve and Strengthen ISTEA's
Current Safety Programs to Better Pro-
tect Pedestrians
Congress must adequately fund
pedestrian safety activities. Specifically,
ISTEA's safety programs should be im-
proved with these modifications:
(a) Fund projects that promote pe-
destrian safety from the federal safety
set-aside program at a rate equivalent to
their share of fatalities nationwide (i.e.
roughly 14 percent).
Pedestrian safety should be recog-
nized as a national transportation safety
priority on par with automobile and
railroad safety programs. The road
lobby consistently argues that money
spent on pedestrians and bicycles di-
verts money from safer roads-. OUf
findings indicate that the opposite is
true - that more money spent to pro-
tect pedestrians will dramatically de-
crease the carnage on OUf roads.
(b) Expand the federal capital
safety funding program (ISTEA's "safety
set-aside") to enhance oppommities for
funding of safety programs for pedes-
trians, bicyclists, and people with dis-
abilities.
The federal funding program for
safety capital projects should:
. add pedestrians to the list of
users for whom hazards are iden-
tified;
. not fund projects that increase
hazards to or inhibit access for
pedestrians;
. require public participation in
establishing priorities;
)
. include safety improvements to
paved trails as specifically eli-
gible for program funding; and
. use "spot-check" programs for
the rapid-response elimination
of low-cost hazards.
(c) Allow more local control over
where and how federal safety funds
are spent.
..
ISTEA created significantly more
local control over transportation pro-
grams by requiring the input of local
decision-making agencies, known as
metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs). MPOs should be granted
project selection authority for federal
safety funds programs.
Cd) Continue other federal safety
programs (sections 402 and 410 of
ISTEA) and promote increased public
involvement.
Federal ISTEA-funded safety pro-
grams that focus on unsafe behavior
such as the Alcohol-Impaired DriVin~
Counter Measures (Section 410) and
Highway Safety Grants Programs (Sec-
tion 402), should be continued. For
planning and project selection, each
state should establish a public involve-
ment process that includes representa-
tives of senior citizens, pedestrians,
bicyclists, motorists, people with dis-
abilitIes, neighborhood groups, and
other stakeholders.
(2) Estahlisb National Goals For
Pedestrian Safety
Congress should establish the goals
of DOTs National Bicycling and Walk-
ing Study - a doubling of the percent-
age of total trips made by biking and
walking, while reducing fatalities by
10% - as national policy. ISTEA
should contain an incentive program
for transportation safety based on mea-
surable changes in a state's per capita
fatality rate. Though these rates vary
greatly from state to state, state DOTs
control significant resources (funding,
technical assi.<;:tance, df":sigfl guides,
10
MEAN STREETS: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND REFORM OF THE NATION'S TRANSPORTATION LAW
etc.) that can make roads safer for
pedestrians, drivers, and passengers
alike6 Their policy choices make a
difference, and these differences can
be measured. States should receive
funds based on changes in their per
capita vehicle-related pedestrian fatal-
ity rate compared to a base year. A
goal and incentive system of this type
will create financial incentives for pe-
destrian safety through a dedicated
fund linked to measurable improve-
ments in reductions in accidents and
fatalities.
(3) Ensure that Road-Building
Projects Don't Increase Hazards for
Pedestrians, including Children, the
Elderly and the Disahled.
All ISTEA-funded projects should
be required to plan for the safe accom-
modation of pedestrians as well as
other vulnerable users of the roadway
(bicyclists. children, elderly and the
disabled). All too often, highway
safety "improvements" have exactly the
opposite effect on pedestrians.
The road lobby consistently argues
that bigger. wider, and straighter roads
are needed to improve motorist safety,
and FHW A data reveal that roughly
one-third of all federal roadway funds
have been used for road widening
since 19917 But road widening pro- ;{.
vides a classic example of how turning
'{. streets into highways makes life more
dangerous for pedestrians. Walking
across a four-lane highway with a 30-
foot median and two 8-foot shoulders
takes more time than crossing a two-
lane road. This increased exposure to
traffic dramatically increases risks for
pedestrians and discourages the public
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP/
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT
from walking. At the same time, wider
and straighter roads encourage motor-
ists to drive faster, increasing the sever-
ity of injuty and the likelihood of fatal-
ity in pedestrian-motor vehicle colli-
sions. Finally, widening roads often
does very little to relieve traffic conges-
tion (another popular justification), as it
facilitates low-density sprawling devel-
opment that makes it nearly impossible
to walk anywhere.
(4) Collect More Accurate and De-
tailed Data on Pedestrians and Walking
Pedestrian safety efforts are hin-
dered by the widespread lack of reli-
able and comprehensive data on walk-
ing. There is no comprehensive infor-
mation on miles walked, as there is for
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT). This
makes it extraordinarily difficult to
place pedestrian safety in a meaningful
context. And, little is known about how
much people walk, why they walk,
what other options they have, and how
these factors vaty with the age of the
pedestrian. In contrast, federal and
state agencies spend millions of dollars
studying driving habits.
The reauthorization of ISTEA pre-
sents an ideal opportunity to fill this
information vacuum by requiring that
US DOT collect better, more detaIled
and more accurate data on levels of
walking, injuty and fatality rates and the
relative risks that pedestrians face. Fur-
thermore, an Interagency Working
Group should be established between
BTS, the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S.
Department of Transportation and other
appropriate agencies to coordinate the
collection and dissemination of all pe-
destrian-related data.
'...J
/".......
,:>'
."
11
l<:"
I,'
NUMBERS WE SHOULD KNOW
One of the biggest barriers to people walking more is
the fear of traffic. We know that on averag~...Ji,P'pQ
pedestrians are kil,led_notiooally._eachyearin collisions
with'car:cWidiave no record of the people who do not
w'arl<O;:-d'C;;:;~t go out because they are afraid of being
hit.
Unfortunately, we also have little idea of the true
amount of walking in the United States. No reliable
national statistics are kept on how many people walk,
how far they wal k, and the reasons why they do and do
not walk. Consequently, walking is often overlooked
and not treated as a real means of transportation. In
fact, what little data we do have can bewildly unreliable.
In 1991, planners in Boulder, Colorado found three
travel surveys for the same area that showed bicycling
and walking accounting for as little as one percent and
as much as 28 percent of all trips.
The most deadly type of motor vehicle crash involves
people on foot. Pedestrians die at a greater rate per
crash and suffer more serious injuries than bicyclists or
motorists, and the average cost to society of a pedestrian-
motor vehicle crash is $312,000 or a total of more than
$32 billion each year.
."
Walking is almost invisible, except when people are
killed and injured. By failing to gather walking data,
especially for shorttrips, we focus all our transportation
investments on motorized, and generally longer trips.
Without accurate data, transportation decisions
discriminate against those who have concentrated
their destinations to create a healthy, environmentally
and economically sound lifestyle.
Source: Campaign 10 Make America Walkable
Notes
6 In 1994, levels ranged from below ten fatalities per 100,000 residents (New Jersey,
Connecticut, New York, Massachusetts and Rhode Island) to more than 25 fatalities per
100,000 residents (Alabama, New Mexico, Mississippi and Wyoming). These differences
have as much to do with the character of communities within a state-rural, urban, etc.-
as with the spending decisions made by state DOTs and MPOs.
7 Ironically, AAA, one of the loudest voices for wider roads,_ also has a pedestrian safety
awards program.
12
MEAN STREETS: PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND REFORM OF THE NATION'S TRANSPORTATION LAW
I~
.' ~..,..'
Mean Streets
References
American Automobile Association. 1996. Crisis Ahead: America's Aging High-
ways and Airways, American Automohile Association, june.
DiStefano and Raimi. 1996. Five Years of Progress: 110 Communities Where
ISTEA is Making a Difference, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington,
DC. pp. 26-27.
Ewing, Reid. 1995. "Measuring Transportation Performance," Transportation
Quarterly, Eno Transportation Foundation, Ine.: Lansdowne, VA, Vol. 49, No.1,
Winter, pp. 91-104.
Durning, Alan. 1996. The Car and the City: Twenty-Four Steps to Safe Streets
and Healthy Communities, Northwest Environment Watch Report No.3, Seattle,
WA, April, p. 24
FHWA. 1994. The National Bicycling and Walking Study: Final Report. U.S.
Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C.
General Accounting Office, 1996. Transportation Enhancements: Status of the
$2.4 billion authorized for nonmotorized transportation. GAO/RCED-96-156. July.
Washington, DC.
National Safety Council. 1996. Accident Facts. Washington, D.C.
NHTSA. Pedestrian Safety For The Older Adult. U.S. Department of Transpira-
tion. Washington, D.C.
Transportation Research Board. 1994. Highway Capacity Manual, Special Re-
port 209, Third Edition. Washington, DC. See also, Greenberg, F. and J.
Hecimovich. 1984. Traffic Impact Analysis, PAS Report No. 387. Chapters 1 and 2.
Orcutt, Jon. 1995. The Wrong Foot Forward: Projected Traffic Safety Invest-
ments in New York City, 1994-1999. Tri-State Transportation Campaign/Transporta-
tion Alternatives, New York, New York.
Perez-Pesa, Richard. 1996. "Rushing Roulette on Mean Streets: Where New
York Pedestrians Risk Life and Limb Every Day," The New York Times, Friday,
December 13.
Pierre-Pierre, Garry. 1996. "New York City Slow in Aiding Those on Foot,"
The New York Times, Saturday, December 14.
ENVIRO.\lMENTAL WORKING GROUP/
SURFACE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PROJECT
1 3
Slater, 1997. "Opening Statement of the Honorable Rodney E. Slater, Federal
Highway Administration Administrator and Secretary of Transportation Designate,"
to the Conunittee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, United States Senate,
29 January.
U.S. Department of Transportation. 1985. "The Pedestrian Safety Problem,"
Program Development Division, Office of Highway Safety, Federal Highway Ad-
ministration. August.
Zein, S., et a!. 1997. "Safety Benefits of Traffic Calming," submitted for presenta-
tion and publication at the Transportation Research Board';; Annual Meeting, Janu-
ary 1997.
14
MEAN STREETS: PEDESTRIAN NO REFORM OF THE NATION'S TRANSPORTATION LAWS
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 1 of 4
~
Executive Summary
Walking in the United States is a dangerous business. Per mile traveled, pedestrians are 36 times
more likely to die in a collision than drivers. In this report STPP examines the pedestrian safety
problem through analysis of federal safety, health, and spending statistics. This report identifies the
cities where pedestrians are most at risk, finding that sprawling communities that fail to create safe
places to walk are the most dangerous. It documents how the dangers of walking in automobile-
dominated areas is driving pedestrians off the street. People are taking far fewer trips by foot, because
walking has become unsafe and inconvenient in so many places. This means a growing number of
people are facing another type of danger: the health conditions and diseases associated with a
sedentary lifestyle. This report also shows that only minimal federal transportation resources have
been devoted to making walking safe and convenient. The final chapter outlines solutions that can
make walking not only safe, but attractive and convenient.
The Most Dangerous Places for Pedestrians
Data collected by the federal.JSovernme~.t..~g9'\YSJhat.in_1-99.1and.122ILthirteen percent of all traffic
fatalities were pedestrians: a toll "ofTO,696 people. But the risk of dying as a pedestrian varies
depending upon where you live. STPP analyzed both the amount of walking in a community and the
number of pedestrian deaths in the years lQ9.L'!E.~L1298 (the most recent years for which localized
data are available) to compare the risks faced by the average walker in different areas. According to
this Pedes,g-ian DangGrlndex,..thcunost dangerous metro area for walking is. Tampa, Florida, followed
by Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville,Phoenix, WestPalm Beach.,MEii:IpJjLS;":R~I~~;@<[:N..ey{
Orleans. These results showthatthefuost dangerous places'{or--walking tend to be the newer
Southern and' Western metro areas.
TEN MOST DANGEROUS LARGE METRO AREAS
I II
! Rank Metro Area
I 1 IITampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater, FL
I 2 IIAtlanta, GA
i..::c...3 IIMiami-Fort Lauderdale, FL
I 4 IIOrlando, FL
i 5 IIJ acksonville, FL
6 IIPhoenix AZ
7 Ilwest Palm Beach-Boca Raton FL
8 IIMemphis, TN-AR-MS
9 IIDallas-Fort Worth, TX
10 IINew Orleans, LA
· Total I ID~'
Pedestrian Percentage of i
Deaths (1997- Commuters Walking .
I 1998) to Work . Dal
II 192 II 2.27% Ii
!1185 II 1.45% ]i
II 274 II 2.25% Ii
.11 139 II 3.46% IL
~ 71 ~ 257% i
190 II 2.65%
II
II
II
II
49
70
192
88
1.99%
2.96%
1.86%
3.09%
These are places where sprawling development has often left pedestrians stranded. Wide roads have
been built without sidewalks or frequent crosswalks, and high- speed traffic makes these ro".dways
ntin'//Y<,',J.rUJ tnmC:::::lrt ryra/Rpn(wtc:::/mc:?OOO/exf':r htn"
8/2100
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 2 of 4
particularly deadly. In many areas, intersections with crosswalks may be as much as a half-mile apart,
leaving pedestrians with no safe way to cross the street. Of the pedestrian deaths for which "<,
information is recorded, almost 60 percent (59.1%) occurred in places where no crosswalk was
available.
As with automobile fatalities, the total number of pedestrian deaths has dropped slightly over the last
few years. However, while the amount of driving is increasing, the amount of walking is decreasing.
This may mean that driving is getting safer per mile while walking is not.
Some groups of people appear to be at particular risk as pedestrians, including children, the elderly, i
and Latinos. Senior citizens and Latinos have high death rates compared to other populations; Latinos '
tend to walk more than other groups even though they often live and go to school in areas where
walking is difficult and dangerous. Children also rely more heavily on walking to go places. The
states with the highest death rates for children in 1997-1998 were South Carolina, Mississippi, Utah,
North Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Alaska, and Louisiana.
Walking Less: A Threat to Health
Poor conditions for walking are contributing to a steep drop in how much Americans walk
According to the Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey, the number of trips taken on foot
dropped by 42 percent in the last 20 years. Among children, walking trips dropped by 37 percent in
the same timeframe, and now almost 70 percent of children's trips take place in the back seat ofa car.
And walking is not getting any easier. Studies in Seattle and South Carolina both show that the newer
a school or housing development, the less likely that students or residents will go anywhere on foot.
Many other studies have established that community design can make a big difference in whether
people choose to walk.
The decline in walking contributes to a different type of mortality: death from diseases associated
with physical inactivity. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that 300,000
Americans die each year from such conditions, including coronary heart disease, high blood pressure,
and colon cancer. The decrease in walking, the most basic form of exercise, has recently been
recognized as one contributing factor in the epidemic of obesity in the United States, Health officials
are calling for a return to more walkable communities to improve American health by integrating
walking into everyday life.
httD:/ Iv. 'ww. trans act. on~/ReD orts/ms2 0001 ex ec. h tm
8/2/00
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 3 of4
,
,
'"~
';'fRCENl
40
3S
}O
~s
iQ
fS
..
'0
.
.
.
.
5
P.(!n:::€flt.o( TrIps Made {lI'l Foot
o .-," ......--.-.T....'.__.,--._:-n._'_...:-...,__..!m..:.-.-T
..~-T-..-!.-!--'.j.--l
'974
;:8
8;t
86,
9"
94't''EAR
A comparison of transportation and health statistics reflects this trend. As walking has declined, the
percentage of overweight adults and children has increased. In addition, metropolitan areas where
people walk less tend to be places where a higher percentage of people are overweight.
The Neglect of Pedestrian Safety
Despite the clear safety and public health problems outlined above, pedestrian convenience and safety
are generally neglected by state and regional transportation officials. While Americans take less than
six percent of their trips on foot, thirteen percent of all traffic deaths are pedestrians. Yet the states
use less than one percent (0.6 percent) of all federal transportation dollars to provide pedestrians with
better facilities. Engineers traditionally design roads from the 'centerline out,' focusing almost
exclusively on providing travel lanes for automobiles. Sidewalks are at best an afterthought, often
considered "amenities" that can be left out. On average, the states spent just 55 cents per person of
their federal dollars on pedestrian projects, compared to 72 dollars per person on highway projects. In
some states, the disparity was even greater. A table with figures for each state can be found in
Chapter 3.
In addition, pedestrian safety is neglected by law enforcement and safety officials who put full
responsibility for avoiding a collision on the pedestrian, ignoring driver behavior. A study of police
reports in New York City found that drivers were at fault in 74 percent of cases studied, yet only 16
percent of them were cited. In addition, many safety programs focus almost exclusively on keeping
pedestrians out of the way of cars, rather than providing safe facilities for walking or promoting
responsible behavior by drivers.
The Path to Safer Streets
The path to safer streets is clear. Communities need to invest their transportation dollars in pedestrian
safety, retrofit streets to make walking safer, and design new streets and neighborhoods to encourage
walking. Transportation officials should:
Spend on pedestrian safety in proportion to pedestrian deaths.
nttn://"""u'/T\' tnmS::1rt orafR f':nnrts/ms?OOO/exec.ntm
8/2/00
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 4 of 4
.)
<~
If thirteen percent of all traffic fatalities are pedestrians, it stands to reason that. a similar
amount of safety funds should be devoted to pedestrian safety. In addition, federal
transportation dollars no longer restricted to highway use should be directed toward
providing a variety of safe and convenient pedestrian facilities.
Retrofit streets with traffic calming.
With so many streets designed only for automobiles, it will take more than a few
sidewalks and crosswalks to make them safe and inviting for pedestrians. Traffic calming
techniques, such as curb bulb- outs and traffic circles, slow down automobiles in key
places and reclaim streets for children, residents, and others on foot or bicycle.
Design new streets and neighborhoods for walking.
More people will walk in neighborhoods where there is somewhere to walk to. The best
neighborhoods for walking put residents within a reasonable distance of shops, offices,
schools, and transit stops, and provide a street and path network that allows direct routes
between them.
Collect more information on pedestrian safety.
Federal databases provide little information about the risks associated with walking, the effectiveness
of pedestrian safety measures, or even how much is spent on pedestrian safety. The National
Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the US Bureau of Transportation Statistics should design
research programs to learn more about how to improve pedestrian safety. On the local level, citizens
are already performing "walkability audits" that assess the dangers to pedestrians, block by block.
...
..
Table of Contents
Ex<;.<;;utive Summary
Chapter One - America's Dangerous Streets
Chapter Two - The Dangers of Walking Less
Chapter Three - The Neglect of Pedestrian Safety
Chapter Four - Solutions for Safer Streets
Methodology
Endnotes
Resources
Appendix
http://v;ww.transact.org/Reports/ms2000/ exec.htm
8/2/00
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 1 of6
Chapter One
America's Dangerous Streets
Each year, thousands of Americans are killed
and tens of thousands are injured walking
down the street. In_19nand199Jl,JP,696
pedestrians in thell,$. werykilled.i&-traffic
accldeiiiS-(5,406in i997-and5,29l ill 1998).
More.than 1,500 of these victims were children
under th~;;'g~-;;f~ighteeri.'-.. ..._'._m._.__
--------------.----
In comparison with other ways of getting
around, walking is particularly risky. While
Americans took less than six percent of their
trips on foot, almost thirteen percent of all
traffic deaths were pedestrians.
And walking is far more dangerous than driving or flying, per mile traveled. The fatality rate per 100
million miles traveled was 1.4 deaths among automobile users, and 0.16 deaths among people aboard
airplanes. But almost 50 pedestrians died for every 100 million miles walked in 1997Q}. This means
that for each mile traveled, walking is 36 times more dangerous than driving, and over 300 times
more dangerous than flying.
About thirteen percent of all the people who died in traffic accidents
during 1997-1998 were pedestrians. But this only begins to describe
the scope of the problem. Pedestrians also pay a heavy toll in
injuries. Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) reveal that in 1997 and 1998, for every
pedestrian killed by a car, approximately fourteen more were injured.
Government estimates show that in 1998 alone, 69,000 pedestrians
were hit by cars and injured. However, this number may be low
because of under-reporting.
Fatality Rate per 100
Million Miles Traveled:
Driving 1.4
Flying 0.2
Walking 49.9
The Most Dangerous Metro Areas for Pedestrians
Some places in the United States are more deadly for pedestrians than others. To measure that
~ danger, we ranked the country's largest metro areas, taking into account both the rate of pedestrian
i deaths as measured by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, and the amount of
pedestrian activity in the community as measured by the U.S. Census Bureau. For this study we used
the average number of deaths during 1997 and 1998 (the years for which most recent localized data
are available) to even out unusually safe or deadly years and present an accurate picture.
By dividing the numoer of fatalities in a given metro area by a measure of how much walking is
htlD :llwww.l.ansac!.omlRenorts!ms200010ne.htm
8/2/00
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 2 of6
occurring in that area, we arrive at a "P.",destrial}..Dang<<r.l~ich allows us to compare the risk
faced by the average walker in different metro areas.ill The resulting ranking shows that among large
metro areas in 122L<l11.d1998, Tampa was the mostciangerousf()r pedestrians, followe~thA~lil11!a,
Miami, Orlando, J acksonvl11t:i;Phoenix, West Palm Beach, Memphis,'i:5allas,-an-d New Orleans. (See
Tab~ge 10.)
Sprawl Makes Walking More Dangerous
These results show that walking tends to be most dangerous in newer Southern and Western metro
\ .... areas. Most of these places have been built-up since the 1950s and are dominated by subdivisions,
~, office parks, and high- speed roads that are designed for fast automobile traveL This means that
pedestrians may be forced to walk alongside high-speed roads without any sidewalks, and often must
contend with crossing wide, busy streets with no median and few safe crossing- points. Intersections
are often designed with wide, sweeping curves that allow cars to keep moving at high speed, but
increase the crossing distance and danger for pedestrians. Zoning codes typically require businesses
to be fronted by a large parking lot, forcing pedestrians to thread their way through a maze of parked
cars to reach their destination.
In such sprawling environments, the combination of wide roads without pedestrian facilities and
high-speed traffic can prove deadly. The national data show that walking is most dangerous in places
without a basic network of pedestrian facilities - in other words, sidewalks and crosswalks. In many
areas developed for automobiles, intersections with crosswalks may be as much as a half-mile apart,
leaving pedestrians little choice but to cross these wide streets unprotected. Of the deaths for which
location information was recorded, 59 percent occurred in places where pedestrians had no access to
a crosswalk. While jaywalking is often given as a cause of pedestrian accidents, less than 20 percent
of these fatalities occurred where a pedestrian was crossing outside of an available crosswalk.
Figure 1. Where Pedestrians Are Killed
htt,..., ://v..rw,:v.tnms:::!rJ nrafR ennrts/ms2000/one.ntm
8/2/00
MEAL'\[ STREETS 2000
Page 3 of6
-"
In Parking
Lane On Road
O 20; 5hou Ider
.;0 6 S"
\ .10
NotOn .
Roadway
4.8%
Outside
Trafficway
1.0%
/
Not In
Crosswalk
18.5%
,
Speed is also am.ajor factor in whether a pedestrian accident proves to be fatal. A ten-mile per hour
increase-m:spe~d,fr;m:-20mph to 30 mph, increases the risk of death fo~ a pedestrian in a collision
nine- fold. If a car going 20 mph hits a person, there is a 95 percent chance that the person will
survive. If that same car is traveling 30 mph, the person has slightly better than a 50/50 chance of
survival. At 40 mph, the picture is bleaker still - only fifteen percent of people struck at this speed
can be expected to survive.ill
Unfortunately, for many years traffic engineers failed to address these problems. Although painted
crosswalks and walk signals can help, they do little to improve pedestrian safety when placed in a
haphazard fashion or spaced too far apart. One respected safety expert has described the kind of ad-
hoc placement of pedestrian facilities as being like "trying to mend a severely broken leg using only a
small bandage. "{1l In many cases this is a byproduct of the attitudes toward traffic safety in the
minds of many traffic engineers. They see their top priority as making roads safer to drive at higher
aJ1<! higher speeds, with little consideration of the effect this might have on those-not driving -
pedestnans, Dlcyclists,neighbors, children and others. In pursuit of these goals, lanes are widened,
curves'-arestraightened, and traffic signals are re- timed, all to accommodate the journey by car.
Urifortunately; each ofthese actions makes the roadway less safe for pedestrians. .
Who Is at Risk?
Children deserve particular attention when considering pedestrian safety. (Table 2) because they rely
more heavily than adults on walking to get where they need to go. In 1997 - 1998, sixteen percent of
pedestrian deaths were people under 18 years old. Challenging street crossings that involve high
speeas--atid'miiii)TIiirles of traffic can be particularly hard for young children.
http://www.transact.org/Reports/ms2000/one.htm
8/2/00
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 4 of 6
jr
/, ..'~
......
For children, the states with the highest death rateC~ were South Carolina, Mississippi, Utah, North
Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Alaska, and Louisiana. Most of these states are in the South and
West, where automobile-centered development has been the strongest.
In addition, elderly people face a higher risk of death as pedestrians. Twenty- two percent of all
pedestrians killed were over 65, even though only 13 percent of the population is elderly. Many
pedestrian facilities, particularly walk signals, are timed for use by young adults in good health, and
don't give elderly people enough time to cross in safety.
Some ethnic groups may also be at higher risk. While national statistics are"not available, several
local studies point to a problem. An STPP study of California pedestrian safety found that a high
proportion of pedestrian deaths and injuries in those under 20 years old were young Latinos or
African Americans. In 1996, Latino children represented 38.5 percent of the total population of
children in California, but they were involved in 47.9 percent of all child pedestrian incidents
(fatalities and injuries). In 1996, African American children comprised 7.8 percent of the total
population of children in California, but were involved in 14.2 percent of all child-related pedestrian
incidents.@ The Latino Issues Forum attributed the discrepancy to the higher level of walking
among Latinos, even though they often live and go to school in areas where walking is difficult and
dangerous.ill The Centers for Disease Control reported recently that in Atlanta, Latinos had
pedestrian fatality rates six times that of whites.J]l Latino groups in Atlanta are pushing for better
pedestrian facilities along a major seven-lane road where many pedestrians have died..c2l A survey in
suburban Washington, DC also found that Latinos were disproportionately represented in pedestrian
deaths..QQl
Dangerous Trends for Pedestrians
The deadly environment for pedestrians in the United States is not just an inevitable consequence of
modem life. Pedestrian fatality rates in the United States are far higher than in other industrialized
countries. A recent study compared pedestrian fatalities in terms of the total distance walked. In both
Germany and the Netherlands the rate was 26 deaths per billion kilometers walked, while in the
United States the rate was 364 deaths per billion kilometers walked - or fourteen times greater-@
This indicates that much more can be done to make walking safer.
"httn.l/u'-n"lv tr-~:n;c:~('t Ar(TiR PT"lArtc/rn<:7nnn/nnp 'htm
R/2/00
MEAt"! STREETS 2000
Page 5 of6
- /
r" C'"
The absolute number of pedestrian deaths has dropped slightly, part of an overall decline in traffic
deaths. However, the decline in deaths among pedestrians tells a different story than the decline in
deaths among motorists. For motorists, deaths are falling as driving increases, while for pedestrians,
deaths are falling as walking decreases. In other words, it looks as if driving is getting safer per
mile while walking is not.
There are several possible explanations for this, including the increasingly sprawling and pedestrian
unfriendly nature of much new development, and the disproportionately low expenditure of federal
transportation funds on projects that lessen the risks to pedestrians. These topics will be explored in
greater detail in Chapter Three. And as the next chapter demonstrates, the trend toward less walking
has effects on human health that reach beyond death and injury rates.
...
...
Table of Contents
Executive SummarY
Chapter One - America's Dangerous Streets
Chapter Two - The Dangers of Walking Less
Chapter Three - The Neglect of Pedestrian Safety
Chapter Four - Solutions for Safer Streets
Methodology
Endnotes
Resources
Ap-llendix
htlp:llwww.transact.orglReports/ms200010ne.htm
8/2/00
MEAL'! STREETS 2000
Page 6 of6
..
htlp Jiwww.transact.org/Report./ms2000/0ne.htm
8/2/00
,
r
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 1 of 5
! t:'.,
!.--!
Chapter Two
The Dangers of Walking Less
Chapter One documents the dangers faced by those who choose walking as a form of transportation.
But while roads are not as safe for walking as they should be, walking less is not the answer. In fact,
the sedentary lifestyle that has become the habit of so many Americans is proving to be dangerous to
health. In this chapter, we explore how the decrease in walking may be increasing health risks for
millions of Americans. We explore the danger faced by those who do not waik, often because they
have been literally driven off the road by our car- oriented transportation system. The health care
community has recognized the problem and is calling for an effort to design communities that invite
walking and promote better physical health.
The Decline in Walking
Americans are walking much less than they used to. The number of trips people take on foot has
dropped by 42 percent in the last 20 years. The Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey,
conducted by the US. Department of Transportation, documents the decline in the amount
Americans walk. Walking dropped from 9.3 percent of all trips in 1977 to just 5.4 percent in 1995.
Yet more than one-quarter of all trips are still one mile or less, and by one calculation at least 123
million car trips made each day in the United States were short enough to have been made on
footill
f1H1CE:N1
40
"
The number of JO
trips people take '5
on foot has
dropped by 42 :l.Q
percent in the last tS
20 years. <0 .
S
.
.
F'elXeruof Trips M'ade o,n Foot'
.
o ":'--Y-~--:--:-'.'-~"--''''''~'''-'~''--~---:'-"'T--r-''-;,
'974
7"
"'
86
9"
94'r'EAR
Much of the decline in walking can be attributed to the increase in neighborhoods designed so that it
is not safe or convenient to travel by foot Residential areas with no sidewalks and wide streets have
been built with high- speed car travel in mind. The nearest store, school, or workplace is often far
beyond the quarter- to half-mile radius that is most convenient for foot travel. Workplaces are often
'0oote~ J'n On;]ce pa"'cc 0000<<:1..10 _~1" ].,\/'0" "nd ]'s,la'ad frc~l on)' otb,e- Oer,]'oes
1_\...d.~ '.1 -'- ~.... _' ,.):)...::......___........"'.,-'-v,.....V.I..O.1) '-./ .....~u,al c... ~I..- ~~.~-'- "-l 1 ~ ,\..- .
nttn-/lur"r"u tr~n~~rt flf"'o-(R PT"lnrlc/mc:7nnn/turn htm
~ /7 Inn
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 2 of 57 '"
~~./
There is ample evidence from dozens of studies that compact commumtIes that mix housing,
workplaces, and shopping are places where people take more trips on foot.l1l But such "traditional"
neighborhoods are often in the older part of town, and newer developments tend to be more
auiomobile oriented. One recent study of Seattle neighborhoods found that the newer the
development, the less likely it is that residents will walk, bicycle, or take transit.Ql
The decline in walking has been steep among children as well, and is also influenced by community
design. In 1977, children aged five to fifteen walked or biked for 15.8 percent of all their trips. By
1995, children made only 9.9 percent of their trips by foot or bicycle, a 37 percent decline. Children
now make a majority - almost 70 percent - of their trips in the back seat of a <;ar.
The influence of community design on the decision of whether or not to walk is made clear by
looking at the trend in the number of children who walk to school. Schools are increasingly isolated
from.the communities they serve. New schools may be placed on the edge of communities, and wide,
busy thoroughfares prevent children from biking or walking to school. Even schools that back up on
subdivisions are often inaccessible by foot because there is no path to them: the only link is a
circuitous street network. Many communities experience traffic jams around schools as parents
deliver children to the door. Increasingly, mothers (and some fathers) are becoming the bus drivers of
the new millennium. Women with school-aged children now make more car trips each day than any
other population group, and on average spend more than an hour a day in the car.ffi
30%
15%
1951 -
1960
1961 -
1970
1971 -
1980
1982 -
1990
1991
Present
25%
C
<lJ
.~oo
1.:)0'
",'"
...--
Cc:
<lJ._
"0.
:J-0Il
.a,..,.rl::
tI'l._
iot-Vl
0:J
co
<lJ-o
OIl....
""""
"'N
c:""
~:t:
....'
Q)
a.
20%
10%
5%
O%~
Before
1950
Decade When School Was Built
A study in South Carolina found that students are four times more likely to walk to schools built
before 1983 than to those built more recently. Hazards such as busy streets are forcing more children
who live within walking distance to board a bus instead. The same study found that students are more
http://www . transact. org/Reports/ms2000/two .htrn
8/2/00
MEA.c'l STREETS 2000
Page 3 of5
than three times likely to get such "hazard busing" if they attend a school built after 1971.j]}
Walking Less: A Threat to Health
While the decline in walking has meant slightly fewer pedestrian deaths, it is contributing to a
growing health threat: health problems caused by a sedentary lifestyle. The decline in walking trips
has come at the same time that more Americans have become overweight (see Figure 2, pg. IS). The
National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys found that in the late 1970s (1976 to 1980) 25
percent of the population was overweight; by the early 1990s (1988 to 1994) that number had grown
to almost 35 percent. Since then, the trend has apparently continued: another national health survey,
the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System, shows that the number of Americans defined as
obese grew from twelve percent in 1991 to almost eighteen percent in 1998.@ Today more than half
of American adults are overweight or obese.
The American Medical Association (AMA) recently declared obesity an epidemic and a major public
health concern. The AMA blames the epidemic on people eating more, and on the fact that
"opportunities in daily life to bum energy have diminished."J1l In an editorial in its journal, the
AMA noted that car trips have replaced trips that used to be made on foot or by bicycle, and says
helping people get back to walking or bicycling should be a first target in combating the obesity
epidemic. But it also noted, "Reliance on physical activity as an alternative to car use is less likely to
occur in many cities and towns unless they are designed or retro- fitted to permit walking or
bicycling. "ill
Obesity is just one of the health problems associated with a sedentary lifestyle. The Centers for
Disease Control estimates that 300,000 Americans die each year from diseases associated with
physical inactivity. Even modest physical activity, such as walking, can decrease the risk of coronary
heart disease, high blood pressure, colon cancer, diabetes, and even depression.[2l
P1;A.CENT
10
e
"
-4 h:n::ent (I(C::hildrt;.hWhoA~ O'if.!r'Wc1g:ht
q-. ... .-""~--"Y-"'--'i-""""-';".''''''''--' --..,..-...,.....,-....
m_-..._-,-_.-.!'_.".:~-''1
197-1
78
i;.h
36
90
Cjhf '(toAR
The health effects of not walking show up among children as well as adults. As children take feWer
trips on foot, more of them are becoming overweight (see chart). Between the early 1970s (1971 to
1974) and the early 1990s (1988 to 1994), the portion of children who were overweight grew from
5.5 percent to 13.6 percent. Obesity among children is at an all-time high, and reports bemoaning the
sedentary lives of children have become commonplace. About 60 percent of obese children have risk
http://www.transact.org/Reports/ms2000/two.htm
8/2/00
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 4 of5 -
factors that will probably translate into chronic diseases as adults.QQl One study in Britain even
found that children who are driven to school have an elevated risk of growing up with heart disease
and brittle bones.Ql}
In comparing health research to transportation data, STPP found that metro areas where people walk
less tend to be places where more people are overweight Places where people walk further each day
tend to have fewer people who are at risk of health problems due to obesity. In fact, for every ten
percent decrease in the amount of walking, there is an almost one percent (0.7%) increase in the
percentage of people who are overweight This relationship remained when we controlled for age,
race, and income. Obviously many factors contribute to this pattern, and a more detailed, controlling
study of this question is needed. But our simple comparison suggests that where you live, and
whether you can walk in your neighborhood, may be related to your likelihood of suffering from
obesity or the other dangers associated with a sedentary lifestyle.
0.50
.....
.<=
00
.~ 0.45
"-
III
>
o
III
"-
<>:
o
.<=
::
III
0-
o
III
a.
'+-
o
.....
c
~ 0.25
....
III
a.
0.40
-
.n
. +. .f
...
+
"
..
T ...
.
.
..
0.35
.
.
..
.
0.30
...
.. ... .. .
.
.
. .
.
-
.
.
.
0.20
o
0.05
0.10 0.15
(one~lenth at a milt;'}
0.20
0.25
(qu.arter mile)
0.30
Average Daily Miles Traveled on Foot
Numerous national and local health organizations have begun promoting more walkable communities
as a fundamental way to improve basic human health. The Centers for Disease Control is working to
promote Active Communitv Environments: places where people can easily walk and bicycle. The
California Department of Health Services has decided that better health will require a better
transportation environment, stating, "Our vision is a state where doctors prescribe walking and biking
to their patients, employers subsidize bike facilities and community trails, and transit services
accommodate cyclists by making intermodal travel safe and seamless."
When walking to a destination is possible, a British Medical Association study shows it is well worth
the extra time' it may take. The study found that the extra time spent walking or cycling to a
destination is more than offset by the health benefits of the cardiovascular exercise, because it
extends life expectancy by more than the extra time it takes to walk or cycle.@
httn-l/www tr"ns"d ()n"lR~n()rts/ms?nnn/tw() htm
S/21On
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 5 of 5
...
..
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Chapter One - America's Dangerous Streets
Chaptcr Two - The Dangers of Walking Less
Chapter Three - The Neglect of Pedestrian Safety
Chapter Four - Solutions for Safer Streets
Methodologv
Endnotes
Resources
Appendix
<
htlp:l/www.transact.org/Reports/ms2000/two.htm
8/2/00
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 1 of3
Chapter Three
The Neglect of Pedestrian Safety
Despite the clear public health and safety problems presented by pedestrians being hit by cars,
pedestrian safety is still neglected in the United States. Little federal spending goes to protect the
most vulnerable road users. Most traffic safety programs are aimed at ensuring the safety of
motorists, and too often pedestrians are considered at fault in accidents.
Nationwide, 5.4 percent of all trips
are made on foot, and 13 percent of
all trafficfatalities are pedestrians.
Yet the states spent less than one
percent of their federal funds on
pedestrian safety.
, ..
I
t
Low S{lending on Pedestrian Proiects (Table 3)
Providing basic facilities is the first step toward improved pedestrian safety. Building sidewalks,
paths and other accommodations is fundamental to providing a safe walking environment.
Unfortunately, the states are doing little with their federal dollars to make it safer and easier to walle
Nationwide, 5.4 percent of all trips are made on foot, and 13 percent of all traffic fatalities are
pedestrians. Yet federal spending on pedestrian facilities came to less than one percent (0.6 percent)
offederal transportation spending in the years studied. On average, the states spent just 55 cents per
person of their federal funds on pedestrian proj ects, compared to 72 dollars per person on highway
projects. In California,. 21 percent of all traffic fatalities are pedestrians, yet the state reported
spending just over four cents per person on bicycle and pedestrian facilities, far below the national
average. Table 3 shows how much each state has spent on pedestrian facilities.
Some federal transportation dollars are designated for use on safety projects, but poor reporting by
the states to the federal government prevents an accurate assessment of the use of these funds. New
language was added to the federal transportation law TEA-21 in 1998 to specifically encourage safety
spending on projects that would enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety, but few states have modified
their spending criteria to use the funds in this way.
Part of the problem is that pedestrian safety has always been a secondary traffic engineering issue.
The overriding goal of traffic engineering has been to improve roadway "level of service" (LOS), so
http://www.transact.orgfReports/ms2000/three.htm
8/2/00
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 2 of 3
that more vehicles may travel at higher speeds. That often means designing roads with wide lanes and
shoulders, large turning radii at intersections, and plenty of passing and turning lanes. Few efforts
have focused on ensuring that streets are safe and convenient for all road users, including pedestrians.
Even the most fundamental pedestrian safety tool, the walk signal, shows this bias because in most
places it allows cars to make right- and left- hand turns across the crosswalk during the walk
sequence. Engineering measures to facilitate pedestrian street crossings, such as curb extensions at
comers, refuge islands, and raised crosswalks have only recently been introduced in the U.S., years
after they became commonplace in Europe.
Blaming the Victim
Pedestrians are often considered at fault in crashes, obscuring the real issue of safe pedestrian
facilities. Police reports are often designed to describe vehicle-pedestrian collisions in terms of what
the pedestrian did wrong.ill Seldom do reports of pedestrian fatalities, particularly in the media,
record the actions of the driver, describe how fast the car was traveling, or note whether the motorist
was paying attention. Yet research has concluded that the fault of pedestrian- vehicle collisions
frequently rests with drivers. When investigating child pedestrian injury cases, a recent study found
that "drivers leave most ofthe responsibility for avoiding collisions to the [child] pedestrian."ill
The police also may be ignoring illegal driver behavior. A study of police reports from deadly
pedestrian crashes in New York City found that in 74 percent of the cases, drivers were speeding, had
illegally turned into a crosswalk, had run a stop light, or were otherwise culpable in the death. Yet
only sixteen percent of drivers were cited, and less than one percent were cited for violating laws
specific to pedestrian safety.ill
Many pedestrian safety projects are aimed at pedestrians rather than at drivers. Many cities have
responded to pedestrian deaths with crackdowns on jaywalking. In some areas, the response to high
pedestrian accidents has been to actively discourage walking. In Santa Ana, California, the solution to
high death rates was to prohibit pedestrians from using medians as refuges from speeding traffic.ill
Other communities have removed crosswalks or put up signs prohibiting pedestrian crossing. These
actions will do little to discourage people who must walk to get where they are going, and may result
in more pedestrian deaths and injuries, not less.
Many safety programs for children focus on training them to be extremely cautious in crossing the
street. But evaluations of these programs show their effectiveness to be mixed at best, and some
studies show children under seven simply do not have the necessary developmental skills to
determine when cars are a danger.ill More and more health and safety researchers are recognizing
that making the environment safer is of crucial importance, especially for children.
^
Table of Contents
Executive Summarv
Chapter One - America's Dangcrous Streets
http://www.transact.org/Reports/ms2000/three.htm
8/2/00
MEAt'! STREETS 2000
Page 3 of3
Chaptcr Two - The Dangers of Walking Less
Chaptcr Three - The Ncglect of Pedestrian Safetv
Chapter Four - Solutions for Safer Streets
Methodology
Endnotes
Resources
Appendix
.'
MEA.1'-J STREETS 2000
Page 1 0 f 5
Chapter Four
Solutions for Safer Streets
Improving pedestrian safety while simultaneously increasing the opportunity to walk presents a
challenge for many communities used to designing roadways only for the automobile. But the need is
clear, as stated by a recent Federal Highway Administration policy paper on designing for pedestrians
and cyclists:
"There is no question that conditions for bicycling and walking need to be improved in
every community in the United States; it is no longer acceptable that 6,000 bicyclists and
pedestrians are killed in traffic every year, that people with disabilities cannot travel
without encountering barriers, and that two desirable and efficient modes of travel have
been made difficult and uncomfortable. "ill
While we've outlined the many barriers to pedestrian safety, there is a clear path to safer streets. It
includes retrofitting streets to make walking safer, designing communities to encourage walking,
investing in pedestrian safety, and studying the pedestrian safety problem.
Retrofitting Streets: More than Crosswalks
Since so many of our streets have been designed exclusively with automobiles in mind, it takes more
than a crosswalk and a walk signal to make them safe and inviting for pedestrians. Many
communities across the country are making streets safer with traffic calming techniques.ill Traffic
calming redesigns streets to reduce vehicle speeds and give more space and priority to cyclists and
pedestrians. Traffic calming includes a variety of changes that slow or divert vehicle traffic, separate
pedestrian pathways from vehicle traffic, and make the road corridor more pleasant. Common traffic
calming measures include landscaped traffic circles, medians or extended sidewalks that narrow the
roadway, and partial closures to divert through traffic. Many communities are slowing traffic with
speed humps, but the most successful projects integrate a variety of techniques that make the street
more attractive and inviting for people on foot and bicycle. The Institute of Traffic Engineers has
published a manual on traffic calming; to see it visit http://www.ite.org/traffic/index.htm .
Studies have shown that traffic calming is very effective in reducing vehicle speeds and reducing
collisions. One study found that traffic calming reduced speeds by four to twelve miles per hour.
Officials in Seattle, Washington, estimate that their traffic circle program prevented 273 accidents
over four years, saving $1.7 billion in property and casualty losses. An international study of traffic
circles found they reduced collisions by an average of 82 percent.Q}
htlp:/ /www.transact.org/Reports/ms2000/four.htm
8/2/00
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 2 of5
The "choker" as depicted above slows down traffic by decreasing street widths. The image on the right shows this type of traffic calming deice in
practice in Montgomery County, Maryland. Photos from Fehr and Peers Associates.
Designing for Pedestrians
Traffic calming is but one part of a broader attempt to fundamentally refocus the design of both
streets and communities so that walking is safe and convenient
Encouraging pedestrian travel means designing communities so that people have somewhere to walk
to. That means developing neighborhoods where residents are within a reasonable walking distance
of shops, offices, schools, libraries, and transit stops. According to the American Planning
Association's Best Development Practices , the best neighborhoods for walking are developed in
small clusters, with well-defined centers and edges, and compact commercial centers.i'!:l The street
network in these neighborhoods should include multiple connections and direct routes that allow
pedestrians to choose the shortest distance to a destination. Schools should also be placed so children
can walk and bicycle without having to cross high-speed streets.
When it comes to designing roads, engineers traditionally begin at the centerline and by the time they
reach the road edge, they have often "run out" of room for pedestrian "amenities." New design policy
guidelines issued by the Federal Highway Administration (FHW A) recommend that state and local
planners and road builders drop that approach, and design all facilities from the start with pedestrians
and cyclists in mind. The new guidance calls for re-writing highway design manuals so they reflect
this new, more balanced approach. One effort is underway in Delaware, where the state Department
of Transportation, with STPP's help, is writing a traffic calming design manual, the first of its kind in
the US. The manual covers street design, signing and marking, and other planning and engineering
Issues.
In a typical suburban strip mall, the streets are wide, encouraging cars to travel at high speeds. Sidewalks end
abruptly or lack pedestrian amenities such as trees. Pedestrians have no safe place to cross the street, and few
http://www.transactorg/Reports/ms2000/four.htm
8/2/00
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 3 of 5
close destinations. Photo provided by Calthorpe Associates and Urban Advantage
A computer-enhanced image show how curb bulbouts, crosswalks, trees and more compact development can
make this are more pleasant and walkable. Photo provided by Calthorpe Associates and Urban Advantage.
This is part of a wider movement toward designing highways in context, to make sure they respect
the cultural, environmental, and scenic assets in a community. A number of states are revamping the
process they use for designing roads, but only one state has completely rewritten its standards.
Vermont re- wrote its standards in the rnid- 1990s to allow lower design speeds, and narrower
roadways. The standards have also been codified under state law, essentially removing the fear of
lawsuits.
Investing In Pedestrian Safety
Making pedestrian safety a priority means investing transportation funds in pedestrian facilities and
safer streets. Each state should attempt to align pedestrian safety funding to pedestrian safety needs,
as indicated by rates of fatalities and injuries: if 25 percent of a state's traffic deaths are pedestrians, it
should consider allocating a similr share of safety funding to making walking safer. State
Departments of Transportation should target such funding by using a systematic approach for
identifying problem areas for pedestrians, sirnilar to the systems now used to identify high accident
areas for vehicles. When it comes to funding, dangerous pedestrian areas should be considered on an
equal footing with dangerous locations for motor vehicles.
One way to begin to direct money into pedestrian safety is to focus on one of the most critical needs,
creating safe routes to school. The state of California recently passed a law that reserves one-third of
the state's TEA-2l federal safety set-aside for a program that will fund traffic calming, crosswalks,
sidewalks, bike lanes and paths in and around California schools. The law was deemed necessary
because the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) hadn't taken any action to update its
safety set- aside program to reflect the changes TEA- 21 made with regard to bicyclists and
pedestrians. School districts will assess the need for improvements around their schools, and apply
for grants., from the state. For a copy of this model legislation, vi,
http://www.baypeds.orglsaferoutes.html .
nttn,/Iu.ruru.J tr~n.;;:~('t nrompnnrf<=:!m<;;:')nnn/fnllT l1tm
RI? InO
MEAl"! STREETS 2000
Page 4 ofS
Promoting Walking: Walk A Child to School Day
A "Safe Routes to School" movement is spreading across the United States as parents and school and
health officials see a need to help give children a more independent and healthier way to get around.
"Walk to School Day" is an event held each fall to call attention for the need for a safe walking
environment. (In 2000, the "International Walk to School Day" is being held on October 4th.)
Thousands of schools organize groups of parents, teachers, and students to walk school, often
inviting local officials to highlight the need for safe routes to schools. For more information, visit
http://www.iwalktoschooLorg .
Studying Pedestrian Safety
Another fundamental step in improving pedestrian safety is to collect more information about
pedestrian fatalities and injuries, the amount of walking and the risks associated with walking, the
effectiveness of pedestrian safety measures, and even' how much is spent on pedestrian facilities.
Federal databases concentrate on collecting information about motor vehicles and the data collected
about pedestrians are incomplete and often inaccurate, crippling attempts to improve pedestrian
safety.
While the Federal Highway Administration is able to forecast the amount of driving annually, no
attempt is made to determine the amount of walking each year. The FHW A database that records all
federal transportation spending, the Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS), includes
hundreds of categories aimed at collecting many details on highway construction, but only allows the
most rudimentary assessment of how much is being spent to make walking safe and convenient. The
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (F ARS) records the entire 17 digit vehicle identification number
for every vehicle involved ina fatal accident, but it often doesn't record where a pedestrian was when
they were hit (for 22 percent of pedestrian deaths, F ARS could not identify whether the pedestrian
was inside or outside of a crosswalk, or even whether there was a crosswalk in the vicinity of the
accident). The US Bureau of Transportation Statistics and the National Transportation Safety Board
should design research programs specifically aimed at capturing new information about this
important travel mode and the risks associated with it.
Local officials and citizens also have a role to play, by identifying unsafe walking environments. The
Partnership For A Walkable America and other groups offer "walkability audits" that individuals and
community groups can use to assess problems in their neighborhood. In many places, citizens have
invited local officials on such walks to show them the dangers pedestrians face. For more
information, visit http://www.nsc.org/walk/wkcheck.htrn.
.
Recommendations:
Spend on pedestrian safety in proportion to pedestrian deaths.
If thirteen percent of all traffic fatalities are pedestrians, it stands to reason that a similar
amount of safety funds should be devoted to pedestrian safety. In addition, federal
transportation dollars no longer restricted to highway use should be directed toward
providin~ a variety of safe and convenient pedestrian facilities.
Retrofit streets with traffic calming.
htto:/lwww.transact.org/Reoorts/ms2000/four.htm
8/2/00
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 5 of 5
With so many streets designed only for automobiles, it will take more than a few
sidewalks and crosswalks to make them safe and inviting for pedestrians. Traffic calming
techniques, such as curb bulb- outs and traffic circles, slow down automobiles in key
places and reclaim streets for children, residents, and others on foot or bicycle.
Design new streets and neighborhoods for walking.
More people will walk in neighborhoods where there is somewhere to walk to. The best
neighborhoods for walking put residents within a reasonable distance of shops, offices,
schools, and transit stops, and provide a street and path network that allows direct routes
between them.
Collect more information on pedestrian safety.
Federal databases provide little information about the risks associated with walking, the
effectiveness of pedestrian safety measures, or even how much is spent on pedestrian
safety. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the US Bureau of
Transportation Statistics should design research programs to learn more about how to
improve pedestrian safety. On the local level, citizens are already performing
"walkability audits" that assess the dangers to pedestrians, block by block.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Chapter One - .A.merica's Dangerous Strects
Ch<mt5:LIlY-'2..- TlleJ!_angers ofWalkil1g L&~.~.
.ch:jJ).teLIh!:.e.e..:~The~Negtect of Pede.s..tr!.'l!Ls.."CelY
Chapter Four - Solutions for Safer Streets
Methodology
Endnotes
Resources
<
Appendix
httn:l/www.transactorg/Renorts/ms2000/foUT.htm
8/2/00
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page lof2
Methodology
Pedestrian Fatalities
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration collects data on every traffic fatality (pedestrian
or otherwise) occurring on U.S. roadways. To determine how many pedestrians were killed in a given
year and county, STPP queried the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (F ARS) for pedestrians who
suffered fatal injuries. We then aggregated the county-level data to the state, Metropolitan Statistical
Area (MSA) or New England County Metropolitan Area (NECMA) for some 330 metro areas across
the US. Dividing this figure by the appropriate population estimate from the US. Census Bureau,
and multiplying by 100,000 gave us a yearly fatality rate per 100,000 persons. (See the U.S. Census
Bureau for definitions of MSA and
http://www.census. gov/population/www/estimates/aboutmetro.html .)
F ARS also collects data on the age of the pedestrian killed, allowing STPP to calculate the number of
children or elderly pedestrians killed by automobiles. Dividing this number by the total number of
pedestrian fatalities gives the proportion of pedestrians killed in a given age group. At the state level,
STPP divided the number of child pedestrian fatalities by the population under age 18 to arrive at a
state-by-state fatality rate for children.
STPP created the "Pedestrian Danger Index" to allow for a truer comparison of metro areas that takes
into account the exposure that pedestrians face in a given metro area. For example, while slightly
more pedestrians are killed per capita in the New York metropolitan area than are killed in the Dallas-
Fort Worth metro area, more than three times as many people walk in New York than in Dallas. So,
the portion of New York residents exposed to the risk of being killed as a pedestrian is three times
higher than in Dallas. We calculated the Pedestrian Danger Index by dividing the average yearly
fatality rate for a metro area by the percentage of commuters walking to work in that metro area, and
then normalizing that figure to 100. Our exposure measure, the percentage of commuters walking to
work is provided by the US. Census Bureau's 1990 Decennial Census.
Health
STPP performed a simple analysis of health and transportation data at the metro level to determine if
there was a relationship between walking and health. While there is an large body of literature
supporting the theory that daily exercise helps maintain health, little research has been done on the
benefits of walking to work or to run daily errands.
.'
Using data from the Centers for Disease Control's 1998 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
(BRFSS), we determined the percentage of residents in metro areas who are at risk for health
problems because of being overweight. We compared this to the number of miles walked daily for
residents in forty large metro areas across the US. This was derived using the 1995 Nationwide
Personal Transportation Survey (the most recent available) and multiplying the average walk trip
length by the average number of daily trips per person. Running a bivariate correlation of the two
variables shows a relationship significant at the 0.001 level. The relationship between walking and
weight proved enduring, even when other possible influences on obesity were considered. The
percent of the' population who were overweight continued to decline significantly as daily miles
walked per capita increased, controlling for differences in age (percent of population over 45 years),
race (percent of population who were minorities), and income (percent of population under the
'htt......./lurunu t,.....,.......C"........t .........nfO,::...t"\........-+co/..-.-.C""')nnf\/....,...of-h......rI ht-n"
Rnm(t
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 2 of2
poverty level). Plotting the two variables on a scatter plot also shows evidence of a relationship _
there is a slight, but noticeable downward trend in the metro areas, indicating that as the distance
walked increases, the percentage of overweight residents in a metro area decreases. Our comparison,
while certainly not a rigorous analysis, shows that there may indeed be a relationship, and that this
merits further study by professionals in the health field.
Safety Spending
STPP calculated spending figures from the Federal Highway Administration's Fiscal Management
Information System - a huge database containing details on every surface (and some waterborne)
transportation project receiving federal funds. For the purposes of this report, we queried the database
for projects with a work type related to specifically pedestrian programs and facilities, or bicycle and
pedestrian programs and facilities. Projects that were specific to bicycles were omitted. Dividing this
figure by the appropriate population estimate from the U.S. Census Bureau gives us the amount spent
on pedestrian projects per capita. For a point of reference, we also performed this analysis for
highway projects. See STPP's "Changing Direction: Federal Transportation Spending in the 19905"
(http://www.transact.org ) for a more comprehensive analysis as well as more information about this
data source.
The percentage of federal funds spent on pedestrian projects was determined by dividing the amount
derived above by the total federal funds spent (including funds devoted to transit). At the national
level, STPP compared this number to the percent oftrips taken by foot, from the 1995 Nationwide
Personal Transportation Survey.
Table of Contents
Executivc Summary
Chapter One - America's Dangerous Strects
Ctumt!<LI"vo - Th~I2ill!gers ofWa1kingl&~~
Ch"pJfLlh[e~..:.Ihe_!'!egle~t of P e.Qe.stri<]lLSllJ'ety
Chapter Four - Solutisms for Safer Streets
Methodology
Endnotes
Resources
Appendix
httn.//www.tr"n."..t......mennrt./m.?OOO/methnrl.htm
8/2/00
MEA.__N STREETS 2000
Page I of3
Endnotes
Chapter One
1. Values given are for million vehicle miles traveled.
2. Unfortunately, comprehensive injury data is not available by state or metropolitan area
and so is not included as a part of the Pedestrian Danger Index.
3. United Kingdom Department of Environment and Transportation, "Killing Speed &
Saving Lives." London, England, 1997.
4. Charles Zeeger, Patrik McMahon, and Dan Burden, "Key Engineering Barriers to
Reducing Child Pedestrian Injuries and Deaths." Paper Presented to the Centers for
Disea.se Control, Atlanta, Georgia, September 1998.
5. Lack of data prevented calculation of an accurate pedestrian danger index for children;
state level deaths per 100,000 are the best measure of child pedestrian death risk.
6. Surface Transportation Policy Project, "Caught in the Crosswalk." San Francisco,
Calif., September 1999.
7. Ibid.
8. Centers for Disease Control, "Morbidity and Mortality Report." Atlanta, Georgia, July
23, 1999.
9. Joey Ledford, "Buford Highway Fixes Sought," The Atlanta Journal Constitution
17 May 2000.
10. Sylvia Moreno, "Fatalities Higher for Latino Pedestrians," The Washington Post ,
27 August 1999.
11. John Pucher, "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe,"
Transportation Quarterly , Summer 2000 (forthcoming).
<
Chapter Two
1. Katie Alvord, Divorce Your Car! Gabriola Island, British Columbia: New Society
Publishers, 2000
2. For a summary of 42 such studies, see Reid Ewing and Robert Cervero, "Travel and
the Built Environment," (forthcoming).
3. Larry Frank, "Land Use and Transportation Interaction: Implications on Public Health
and Quality of Life," Journal of Planning, Education, and Research, October 2000
4. Surface Transportation Policy Project, "High Mileage Moms," Washington, D.C.,
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 2 of 3
May 1999. Full text available at http://www.transact.org
5. South Carolina Coastal Conservation League, "Wait for the Bus: How Lowcountry
School Site Selection and Design Deter Walking to School," Charleston, S.C., 1999. See
http://www.scccl.org
6. Ali Mokdad, et ai, "The Spread of the Obesity Epidemic in the United States, 1991-
1998," Journal of the American Medical Association, October 27, 1999: 1519.
7. Jeffrey Koplan and William Dietz, "Caloric Imbalance and Public Health Policy,"
Journal of the American Medical Association, October 27, 1999: 1579.
8. Ibid., 1579.
9. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, "Physical Activity and Health: A
Report of the Surgeon General." Washington, D.C., 1995.
10. Ali Mokdad, et ai, "The Spread of the Obesity Epidemic in the United States, 1991-
1998," 1519.
11. Institute of Child Health, "The School Run: Blessing or Blight?" London, England,
1999. This report is available from the Pedestrian's Association, 126 A1dersgate Street,
London, England ECIA 4JQ.
12. John Pucher, "Transportation Paradise: Realm of the Nearly Perfect Automobile?"
Transportation Quarterly , Summer 1999. British Medial Association, Cycling Toward
Health and Safety. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press, 1992.
Chapter Three
1. Roberts and Coggan, "Blaming Children for Child Pedestrian Injuries," Social Science
Medicine 38, no. 5 (1994): 749-753.
2. Lightstone, Peek-Asa and Kraus, "Relationship between driver's record and
automobile versus child pedestrian collisions," Injury Prevention 3, no. 4 (Dec. 1997):
262-266.
3. Right of Way; "Killed by Automobile," New York, N.Y., March 1999. See
http://www.rightofway.org or contact (212) 260-5237.
4. Richard Marosi, "Where Pedestrians See Refuge in Medians, Officials See Danger,"
The Los Angeles Times, 7 September 1999: Bl.
5. James Thomson & Andrea Gielen, "The Role of Elementary and Adult Education in
Childhood Pedestrian Injuries." Paper Presented to the Centers for Disease Control,
Proceedings to Prevent Pedestrian Injuries, Atlanta, Georgia, September 1998.
Chapter Four
httn:/ /www.transact.om/Renorts/ms2000/encl.htm
8/2/00
MEA:'J STREETS 2000
Page 3 of 3 _J-
1. Federal Highway Administration (1999). Accomodating Bicycle and Pedestrian
Travel, A Recommended Approach.
htlp:/ /www.fhwa.dot.gov/environmentlbikepedlDesign.htrn
2. To learn more about traffic calming techniques, visit the Institute of Traffic Engineer's
Traffic Calming website, at http://www.ite.org/traffic/index.htm
3. Reid Ewing, Traffic Calming: State o/the Practice. Washington, D.C.: American
Planning Association, 1999.
4. Reid Ewing, Best Development Practices. Washington, D.C.: American Planning
Association, 1996
Table of Contents
Executi Y~.Sl!!nmi!!:Y
Chi!J?l~LQJle_ - AmeD.,,-a'sJ)angeIOuS.SJre.e.t,;;
Cha\Jter Two - The Dangers of Walking Less
Chapter Three - The Neglect of Pedestrian Safety
Chapter Four - Solutions for Safer Streets
Metl}od,Q)Qgy
Endnotes
Resources
Appendix
"
httn:! Iwww.transact.org/Renorts/ms2000/end.htm
8/2/00
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page I of3
Resources
General Information
Pedestrian and Bicycle Information Center http://www.walkinginfo.org
National Safety Council Partnership for a Walkable America http://nsc.org/walkable.htrn
Walkable America Checklist http://nsc.org/walk/wkcheck.htrn
The Federal Highway Administration Bicycle and Pedestrian Program
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/index.htm
The Federal Highway Administration's Pedestrian Safety Roadshow
http://www.ota.fhwa.dot. gov/walk/
The Federal Highway Administration Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Research Page
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safetv/pedbike/pedbike.htm
The Federal Highway Administration's Design Guidance for Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian
Travel htlp:/ Iwww.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bikeped/Design.htm
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's Pedestrians, Bicycles and Motorcycles Page
. http://www.nhtsa.dot. gov/people/iniurvlpedbimotl
Fehr and Peers Associates, Inc. Traffic Calming website http://www.trafficcalmin~.org
Institute of Transportation Engineers' Traffic Calming for Communities
http://www.ite.org/traffic/index.htm
Advocacy Groups
America WALKs http://americawalks.org/
The National Center f~r Bicycling and Walking http://www.bikefed.org
Walkable Communities, Inc. http://www.walkable.org
Congress for the New Urbanism http://www.cnu.org
Right of Way htlP:/lwww.rightofwav.org
Urban Ecology.http://www.urbanecologv.org
Transportation Alternatives http://www. transalt.orgl
l1ttn'//www tr:::ll1<:::::lC',t nrafRf';n()rfr;::/m.;;:.?nn()/rp.~r'\11rf"P htm
Rntnn
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 2 of3
Professional Organizations
Association of Bicycle and Pedestrian Professionals http://www.apbp.org:
The Human Powered Transportation Committee of the Society for Civil Engineers
http://ourworld.comouserve.com/homeoages/kbarrett/asce-hpt.htm
The Institute for Transportation Engineers http://www.ite.org
Other
International Walk to School Day http://www.iwaiktoschool.org:
California's Safe Routes to School Bill http://www.bavpeds.org/saferolltes.htrnl
Transportation Alternatives in New York City, Safe Routes to School Program
http://www . transalt.org/campaigns/school/index.html
See Also
Scenic America, Getting It Right In the Right of Way: Citizen Participation in Context-Sensitive
Highway Design ,2000. http://www.scenic.org
Todd Litman, Robin Blair, Bill Demopoulos, Nils Eddy, Anne Fritzel, Danelle Laidlaw, Heath
Maddox and Katherine Forster. Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning: A Guide to Best Practices. This
report is available from the Victoria Transport Policy Institute at http://www.vtpi.org
John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra, "Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from Europe." This
forthcoming report will be published in Transportation Quarterly , vol. 54, no. 3, Summer 2000.
Table of Contents
.'
Executive Summary
Chapter One - America's Dangerous Streets
Chaptcr Two - The Dangers of Walking Less
Chapter Three - The Ncglect of Pedestrian Safety
Ch'!.PI('TIQ\IL=.SQJ!ltiQ!IsJQLS'!f~LSl)~e~ts
Methodologv
Endnotcs
R"s.9.!l1:.9.~s.
htfT\./ll1rnrnr trflnC'f)f"t n......../Do................."'I............'1()(\()/..."'.........."........o ht........
Q/'1/n{\
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 3 of3
Appendix
<
Active Community Environments
What are Active Community Environments?
Active Community Environments (ACEs) are places where people of all ages and abilities can easily
enjoy walking, bicycling, and other forms of recreation. These areas:
· Support and promote physical activity.
· Have safe sidewalks, bikeways, trails, parks, and recreational faciliries.
. Are close to places where people live and work
Most communities are designed to favor one mode of travel- the automobile- and usually do not
have many sidewalks or bicycle trails. Building roads, schools, shopping centers, and other places of
interest only for the convenient use of cars often keeps people from being able to safely walk
around town, ride bicycles, or play outdoors. TIlls is one important reason why people in the United
States are not as active as they used to be.
. Between 1977 and 1995, people began walking less and driving more.
. One-fourth of all trips people make are one mile or less, Walk and Bike Tri 5,1977-1995
but three- fourths of these short trips are made by car.! 10
. Children between the ages of 5 and 15 do not walk or a
ride their bicycles as much as they used to (40% less "2 6
from 1977 to 1995). Today, fewer than 3 in 10 children ! .
who live within a mile of school walk there from home.!
These trends pose an important public health problem,
especially when the effects of physical inactivity and excess weight
are considered.
. Physical inactivity and unhealthy eating are risk behaviors that
contribute to at least 300,000 preventable deaths each year.'
. Almost a third (29%) of adults get little or no exercise (they are
sedentary), and almost three-fourths (73%) are not active
enough.' (Engaging in 30 minutes of physical activity at least
5 days per week is.recommended.)
. More than 3 in 10 adults are overweight, and nearly 1 in 4
is obese.'
Automobile Tri 5.1977-1995
00,.,..
1
1
e8r-
,
I
~ oor
I~ ~AL
82~
~
o
1977
19l1J
1993
1995
,
001
1:}77
199:)
1995
1983
. More than a third (36%) of young people (grades 9-12) do not participate in vigorous
activities 3 or more days a week 4
. 1 in 4 children and teenagers (aged 6-17) is overweight or at risk of being overweight.'
IdJt(f' -ilillll
btl1 ,j 'F I
"lIjl,11 "
RII~~IF
llnj,iJ~ii~il~ II
CDC
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers far Disease Control and Prevention
National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion
Cc><TERS '-C<lOI5EJ,sero'<t~OL
^~O'R""'Nr,c"
What are the benefits of
Active Community Environments?
ACEs have the potential to help people be more physically active. TIlls is because they give people more
(and safer) places to walk, ride bicycles, and enjoy other recreational activities.
· People are more active in neighborhoods that are perceived as safe. Of those who report living in
unsafe neighborhoods, about half of women and the elderly are inactive.'
· In neighborhoods with square city blocks, people walk up to three times more than in neighborhoods
with cul-de-sac streets or other features that keep streets from connecting.'
· Up to twice as many people may walk or cycle in neighborhoods that are transit-oriented than in
neighborhoods that are auto-oriented,'.'
. People are more likely to be physically active if they have recreational facilities close to their homes.G"
What is CDC doing to promote
Active Community Environments?
COC and its Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity are taking the lead in promoting ACEs. Their
activities include:
. Development of a guide (KidsWalk-to-SchooD to promote walking and bicycling to school.
· Collaboration with public and private agencies to promote National and International Walk-to-
School Day.
· Development of an ACEs manual to help state and local public
health workers develop similar initiatives.
· A partnership with the National Park Service's Rivers, Trails
Conservation Assistance Program to promote the development
and use of close-to-home parks and recreational facilities.
. Collaboration on an Atlanta- based study to review the relation-
ships of land use, transportation, air quality, and physical activity.
. Collaboration with the Environmental Protection Agency on a
national survey to study attitudes of the American public toward
the environment, walking, and bicycling.
1. Nationwide Personal Transportation Survey. US Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Research and Technical
Support Center. Lanham, Md: Federal Highway Administration, 1997.
2. McGinnis 1M, Foege \VB. Actual causes of death in the United States. Journal of the American Medical Association 1993,270: 2207-12.
3. BRFSS (1996 & 1998). Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System-United States, 1996 and BehavioraJ Risk Factor Surveillance
System-United States, 1998. Atlanta: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
4. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. CDC SUIYeillance Summaries. August 14, 1998. MMWR 1998; 47 (No. 55-3).
5. Troiano RP, Flegal KM. Overweight children and adolescents: description, epidemiology, and demographics. Pediatrics 1998, 101 (3): 497-504.
6. Rutherford G5, McCormack E, Wilkinson M. Travel impacts of urban form: implications from an analysis of two Seattle area travel diaries.
Presented at the Th1IP Conference on Urban Design, Telecommunications and Travel Forecasting.
7. Cervero R and Gorham R Commuting in transit versus automobile neighborhoods. Journal 01 the American Planning Association 1995; 61:
~r~ ~i
References
.'
~~
~~'
.~
For more information...
National Center for Chronic Disease
Prevention and Health Promotion
Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity
Physical Activity and Health Branch
Active Community Environments (ACEs)
Initiative
T 01: 770-488.5692
Fax: 770-488.5473
Web site:
www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpaiace.htm
d~
~~
~~~
~!~
May 2000
2
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 1 of2
S U RFACETRANSPORTATION
POLlCVPROJECT
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................
1100 Seventeenth Street, N W. 10th floor, Washington, D. C. 20036
Tel: 202.466.2636; Fax: 202.466.2247; E-Mail: stoo{a)transact.oro
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE For More Information:
June 15, 2000 Barbara McCann, Michelle Garland
Surface Transportation Policy Project
202/466-2636;
Niki Mitchell, Sherry Tiggett,
Langhum Mitchell Communications
202/546-9170
WALKING 36 TIMES MORE DEADLY THAN DRIVING,
AMERICANS LACK SAFE PLACES TO WALK
Report ranks Tampa most dangerous metro area;
Decrease in Walking linked to Rise in Obesity
(WASHINGTON, DC) Pedestrians in Tampa-St. Petersburg Florida face the highest risk of
getting killed by a car, according to a report that ranks the most dangerous large metro
areas for walking in the United States. The report, released today by the Surface
Transportation Policy Project, says the results show that walking is more dangerous in
sprawling communities designed for the automobile.
"Mean Streets 2000" analyzes federal safety and spending databases and finds that per
mile traveled, walking is 36 times more dangerous than driving. It also finds that in 59% of
cases for which information is available, pedestrians died in places where they could not
find a crosswalk. .
"Building our communities only for cars has deadly consequences," said Roy Kienitz,
Executive Director of STPP. "The riskiest places are characterized by spread-out growth
and wide, high-speed streets that often lack sidewalks and crosswalks."
The Surface Transportation Policy Project analyzed the federal Fatality Analysis Reporting
System and census data and found that among the nation's largest metro areas,
pedestrians are most at risk in Tampa, followed by Atlanta, Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville,
Phoenix, West Palm Beach, Memphis, Dallas, and New Orleans. In 1997 and 1998, 10,696
pedestrians died in the United States, 13 percent of all traffic fatalities.
nttn'/h;\T\xru/ tro:::lT'lc~('t r.rcrfRpT'lArtc!-rnc?nnn/nqtnTPCC' ht~
R/7mn
MEAN STREETS 2000
Page 2 of2
/' .-,
~ -
The report also ranks the states according to the fatality rate for children, finding that in
1997-1998 South Carolina, Mississippi, Utah, North Carolina, and Alabama had the highest
death rates for children.
An analysis of federal spending data in the report finds that most states are using little of
their federal transportation funds to make walking safer or more convenient. On average,
states spent just 55 cents per person of their federal transportation funds on pedestrian
projects in the years studied, less than 1 percent of their total federal transportation dollars.
Average spending on highways came to $72 per person.
The report finds that dangerous streets are discouraging people from walking and may be
contributing to serious health problems. The amount of walking has dropped 42 percent in
the last twenty years, while the percentage of overweight Americans has grown by 40
percent. In addition, places where people walk less tend to have more people who are
overweight. A comparison of health and transportation statistics found that for every ten
percent decrease in the amount of walking in a community, there is an almost one percent
(0.7%) increase in the portion of people who are overweight.
"What we're seeing is that sprawling development causes safety problems for those who
walk, and health problems for those who don't," says Kienitz. "We need to build our streets
and our communities so walking is both safe and convenient."
The Surface Transportation Policy Project is a nationwide network of more than 250
organizations, including planners, community development organizations, and advocacy
groups, devoted to improving the nation's transportation system.
For more information, call STPP at (202) 466-2636. The full report, along with state fact
sheets, can be found at STPP's website, www.transact.org
##
.
httn./IWWVJ tr~n~~(',t ()rO'fRpnnrt~/rn<;:?()n()/n~tnrpl;l<;: htrn
RI? Inn
Mean Streets
tOME
Top Issues:
. Pesticides
. Drinking Water
. Air POllution
. Enforcement
Other EWG Sites:
. California
. Dirty Money Tracker
. FoodNews.org
Archives
Contact EWG
About EWG
Openings at EWG
Search EWG:
L____~
;;;~I
~
EWG supports:
~'1~
')~
Earth Day Network
CD
StopPops.org
ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP
Cars Kill 6,000 Pedestrians Every
Year
Top Ten Most Dangerous Cities Named
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
April 8, 1997
Pedestrians are nearly twice as likely to be killed by a
stranger with a car as a stranger with a gun, according to
a new report released jointly by the Environmental
Working Group (EWG) and the Surface Transportation
Policy Project (STPP).
Pedestrian fatalities averaged roughly 14% of all
automobile-related deaths in the U. S. or about 6,000
deaths per year from 1986 to 1995. Yet, transportation
officials only spend about 1 percent of federal
transportation safety money to protect people who walk,
even in high foot-traffic areas, according to the report.
"Pedestrians are not getting their fair share of the federal
safety dollar," said Hank Dittmar, executive director of
STPP.
Senior citizens are at particularly high risk. People over
the age of 65 make up 13% of the population, but they
account for 23% of all pedestrian deaths. In addition, an
average of 1,000 children under the age of 18 are killed
every year while walking. Of all people killed in car
crashes between 1986 and 1995, one in seven were
pedestrians, the equivalent of one large plane crash
every two weeks.
,
Meanwhile, the highway lobby or the "road gang,"
including road builders, automobile manufacturers,
truckers and some state Departments of Transportation,
are lobbying to weaken ISTEA (Intermodal Surface
Transportation Efficiency Act or "ice tea"), the landmark
transportation law that enabled communities---not
lobbyists or Washington---to spend their transportation
tax dollars on innovations such as pedestrian-safe
areas.
"Mean Streets," chronicles the 1 0 deadliest cities overall
hltp :/Iwww .ew.g.org/publhome/reports/meanstreets/meanrelease.html
Page 1 of 4
8/2/00
Mean Streets
for pedestrians and also determines the 10 most
dangerous and the ten safest cities based on the
amount of walking activity in a given community.
"In general the most deadly areas for walking are the
newer, sprawling western areas where transportation
spending has been prejudiced in favor of the car," said
Ken Cook, President of EWG. Part of the problem is how
we define "transportation safety," according to
researchers. Typically, we think of drivers and
passengers, not walkers, thanks to public education
about the dangers of driving drunk, better seat belt laws
and mandatory crash testing. Traffic engineers who
design roadways actually refer to walkers in the Highway
Capacity Manual as "traffic flow interruptions."
"Pedestrian safety historically has meant getting out of
the way," said Dittmar. "That has to change. When we
think of increased transportation efficiency and safety,
we automatically think in terms of cars, air bags and
wider roads---not people, not better public transit, not
safer sidewalks. We need to switch our priorities. People
first, cars second."
As Congress re-writes ISTEA this year, pedestrian safety
advocates are proposing among other improvements,
that it re-authorize the law to allocate safety money
proportional to pedestrian risk. Originally passed in
1991, ISTEA for the first time pried federal transportation
money loose from the stranglehold of highway builders
and allowed flexible use of money for community-
determined transportation needs instead of just to build
new roads.
ISTEA also democratized the decision-making process.
Now, local people and local officials actually decide how
to spend their transportation tax dollars, investing in
< public transit, bike paths and pedestrian safety. Still,
almost all safety money goes to motorist safety
programs.
"The U.S. spends almost no money on pedestrian safety
as we pour billions of dollars yearly into questionable
road 'improvements.' Much of the money spent to
improve roads actually makes them more dangerous for
walkers," said Cook.
In fact, National Highway and Transportation Safety
Administration (NHTSA) data indicate that 55 percent of
http://www.ewg.org/pub/home/reports/meanstreets/meanrelease.html
Page 2 of 4 ::/'
8/2/00
Mean Streets
pedestrians are killed on neighborhood streets and local
roads, making the places we believe to be the safest for
walking, actually the most dangerous.
Some communities have acknowledged the need for
better pedestrian protection and implemented successful
strategies. Seattle instituted a traffic calming program
that reduced pedestrian accidents by more than 75%.
Portland, OR. has a similar plan that reduced accidents
by 50%.
But, the road gang is pushing hard for rival legislation.
They support a measure circulating in the House and
Senate called STEP 21 while the highway lobby is
pushing for the Highways Only Transportation Efficiency
Act (or HOTEA). These proposals would abolish
environmental protection and safety programs to focus
almost exclusively on highway construction.
The STPP coalition is calling on the federal government
to recognize pedestrian safety as a national
transportation priority on a par with automobile and
railroad safety. It is advocating a variety of solutions
including, expansion of the federal capital safety funding
program; more local control over where and how federal
funds are spent; and assurances that road-building
projects don't add to pedestrian hazards.
The coalition includes over 200 environmental and
community organizations. Their goal is to ensure that
transportation policy and investments make communities
more liveable, strengthen the economy, help conserve
energy, promote social equity and protect environmental
and aesthetic quality. EWG is a non-profit research
organization in Washington, D.C.
--30--
~
Download PDF Version of "Mean streets~
Return to EWG bome R.9.9.~ or visit Surf'K~
Transportation Policy Proiect home page
\
Environmental Working Group
htto:l/www.ewg.orgJoub/home/reoorts/meanstreets/meanrelease.htrnl
Page 3 of 4'=: --:
8/2/00
Mean Streets
Page 4 of 4
?
1718 Connecticut Ave., N.W., Suite 600
Washington, DC 20009
jnfo@e.'!!g~9JJ1
"
http://www.ewg.org/pub/home/reports/meanstreets/meanrelease.html
8/2/00
CITY OF AVENTURA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
FROM:
f Community servi~)
TO:
Robert M. Sherma
DATE: January 24,2001
SUBJECT: Bid No. 00-10-26-02 Gazebo at Founders Park
Pursuant to your direction, I have obtained letters from the consulting engineer, Keith
and Schnars, PA, and the architect, Cartaya and Associates regarding the disparity
between the construction estimates and actual bid prices received for this project
Keith and Schnars states their reasoning as:
1. Lump Sum Bids.
2. Non-competitive environment
3. Insufficient time for bids.
Their referral to lump sum bidding refers to the high bidder, The A2 Group. The low
bidder, BRC Construction, properly bid the job showing an Itemized Schedule of
Values. The non-competitive bidding environment refers to the fact that only two
contractors bid on this job. Insufficient time for bidding was based upon the A2 Group
requesting two additional weeks to prepare a bid. After several conversations between
the City and the consultants, a one-week extension was agreed to.
Cartaya and Associates states their reasoning as:
1. The bidding climate.
2. Inability to attract multiple bidders.
3. Government Perceptions.
4. Uniqueness of project
The bid climate refers to an "overheated economy" at the time of bidding and that the
construction industry has never been busier. Costs have escalated last year because
of material shortage and labor demands. Since only two contractors bid on the project
negatively affected the competitiveness of their prices. Government perceptions refer
to "cost loading" bids on government projects to "make it worth it" The uniqueness of
the project refers to the unusual demand of skilled trades, which may have contributed
added labor and contingency cost by the bidders.
Notwithstanding the consultants reasoning, the facts remain that we received cost
estimates from both the consulting engineer and architect at the time the project first
went out for bid in April 2000. Their estimates were within $10,000 of each other with
Keith and Schnars estimating $177,425 and Cartaya and Associates estimating
$165,000. That first bid was opened on May 10, 2000 with seven contractors included
in the mailing, and all the proper advertisements. One bid was received for $592,425
from Danco, Inc. The project was bid again in October and the low bidder was BRC
Construction Company for $306,529. The scope of the bid specifications did not
change during this period of time.
1 think this project has not attracted bidders is due to the degree of difficulty inherent in
the structure, thereby causing a reduced pool of qualified bidders for this specialty
item. The current construction climate compounds this issue, as most contractors are
busy and can command a premium price. These items however, do not justify the great
disparity of the construction estimates and bids received since the engineer and
architect should have addressed in these issues in their construction estimates.
Attachments:
KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A.
ENGINEERS - PLANNERS - SURVEYORS
January 5, 2001
.,L/.l
!J 2fiii
Mr. Robert M. Sherman
Director Community Services Department
2999 N.E. 191" Street, Suite 500
A ventura, Florida 33138
RE: Bandstand at Founders Park
Keith & Schnars Proiect No. 15414.62
Dear Mr. Sherman:
As requested by the City of Aventura, Keith and Schnars, P.A. has determined several possible
reasons why the bids received on November 2, 2000 were significantly higher than the estimated
cost. As you are aware, the initial cost estimate for this project was prepared by different
consultants: K&S prepared the site work cost estimate; Cartaya and Associates prepared the
architectural and structural estimates; and Construction Consultants of Florida prepared:the electrical
estimates. The resulting cost estimate for the above referenced project totaled $177 ,425. 70. The bids
received for this project on November 2, 2000 as a lump sum totaled $484,343.00 (A2 Group) and
$306,529.00 (BRC Construction). The significant difference in the amount of the two bids (A2 and
BRC) is evidence that this project may be very difficult to accurately estimate.
It is K&S' s opinion that the reasons for the consultants cost estimate / bid discrepancies can be
attributed to the following:
LUMP SUM BID: Since the project was bid as a Lump Sum contract the site work (demolition,
earthwork, water, paving and drainage) and building (architectural, structural, geotechnical) the
breakdown costs included in the bid package may not reflect the true cost of each particular item;
therefore, making it difficuit to accurately pinpoint the underestimated areas in the bids.
NON COMPETITIVE ENVIRONMENT: In the past, it was common for City of Aventura projects
to attract at least four to five bidders. The fact that only two contractors bidded on the project did
not demonstrate a competitive environment in awarding the bid. In addition, by having a mandatory
pre-bid conference and only having two contractors present allows for the bidders to provide higher
bids. The size of the project and qualifications required by the contractors might have influenced in
not attracting enough bidders.
INSUFFICIENT TIME FOR BID: Please be aware that per conversations with the bidders, namely
Mr. Posada from A2 Group it was made evident that additional time would have been required by
the bidders to collect necessary information from their subcontractors to complete the bid package.
Mr. Posada on a letter sent to Keith and Schnars on October 12, 2000 requested a two week
6500 North Andrews Avenue' Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 33309-2132
(954) 776.1616' (800) 488-1255' Fax (954) 771-7690
Mr. Robert M. Sherman
Bandstand @ Pounders Park/15414.62
January 5, 2001 - Page 2
extension for the bid date. After several conversations between the City and the consultants, the City
approved a one week extension for the bid opening date.
CONSTRUCTION MARKET CONDITIONS: The unit costs for materials and labor could have
been significantly affected by current construction market conditions.
It is the opinion of K&S that the cost estimate was accurate as an "engineers opinion of probable
cost" which was based on best available information attained from previous cost estimates for similar
City of A ventura projects worked on by K&S and the other consultants for the City of A ventura.
If you have any questions. please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely yours,
KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A.
E?~i~e zr -Pl~n.../~n '~ .rv::~
i Jill,' .
. 'v LI/
"-..
Mark Castano
Project Engineer
cc: Mario Cartaya - Cartaya and Associates
Vemon Jay Pranke - Construction Consultants of Florida
Luke McGregor - Burton, Braswell, Middlebrooks Associates
N:\DA TA\CIVIL\lS414\62\%ennaI501. wpd
,'" ,- .
't 'Y
2a~i
CARTAYA &
ASSOCIATES
ARCHITEcrs. P.A.
January 4, 2000
Robert M. Sherman
Director, Community Services Department
City of A ventura
2999 NE 191 Street, Suite 500
A ventura, Florida 33180
Re: Founders Park Gazebo
City of A ventura
Dear Bob,
Please accept this letter as an explanation of what our office believes to be factors contributing to the
Contractor's Bid costs on the City of Aventura Founders Park Gazebo.
I. The Bid Climate: The economy at the time of the bids was overheated. The Construction
Industry in South Florida has never been busier. Costs escalated throughout the year 2000 because
of material shortage and labor demands.
2. Inability to attract multiple bidders: The bid only attracted two bidders ( the previous bid only
attracted one). This is a result ofa relatively Small Governmental Project competing for bidders
during a period of great private project construction growth. The fact that only two Contractors
Bid on this project negatively affected the competitiveness of their prices.
3. Government Bureaucratic Perceptions: Governmental projects historically have cost more than
similar private projects because of the Bidder's perception of bureaucratic demands, slowness in
response to the projecfs needs and litigious history. \Vhen Contra::tors are busy, they will cost:
load bids on Governmental Projects to "make it worth it".
4. Uniqueness of Project: A Bandstand (Gazebo) is an unusual building type. All construction is
exposed since it is an open exterior structure. This requires an unusual demand of skilled trade
persons which may have contributed added labor and contingency costs by the Bidders.
This concludes our explanation about the factors which may have contributed to the Contractor's Bid Cost.
Sincerely,
o
Mario Cartaya, Principal
Cartaya & Associates, Architects P.A.
Cc: Pete Gallo; Keith & Schnarrs
3077 E. COMMERCIAL BLVD" FT. LAUDERDAlE. FL 33308 954.77 '.2724 FAX 954.776-4280 E-MAIL: cart3077@aol.com MOO' 388
CITY OF AVENTURA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Commission
Eric M. Soroka, City
Community serv~)
FROM:
BY:
DATE: December 18, 2000
SUBJECT: Bid No. 00-10-26-02 Gazebo at Founders Park Construction
January 2, 2001 City Commission Meeting Agenda Item (7 fI-
Recommendation
The City Commission adopt the attached Resolution awarding Bid No. 00-10-26-02
Bandstand (Gazebo) at Founders Park to the lowest responsible and responsive
bidder, BRC Construction Company, Inc. for the price of $306,529.00. Although the
terms bandstand and gazebo have been used interchangeably in this project, the scope
and design of the gazebo has not been changed.
Backqround
In accordance with the City's Purchasing Ordinance, bids for this project were solicited,
advertised and opened on November 2, 2000. The Finance Support Services Director,
City Attorney and consulting engineers prior to advertising for bids, reviewed all
contract specifications.
Based upon our consulting engineer and architect's construction estimates, the initial
budget for construction was $160,000. As part of our efforts to obtain the lowest prices,
this project has been advertised for bid three times. The bids have consistently come
in over b . The project can be funded using the following appropriations.
,00 from General Fund ~
, 00 from the Park Development FunJ
f /" 0 i)u
3J}
.
City Commission
December 18, 2000
Page Two
We anticipate the following construction schedule:
. January 3 - February 14, 2001:
documentation and permits.
Contractor to secure all necessary
· February 15, 2001: Notice to proceed issued. (Contract provides Contractor
with 120 days to finish construction.)
. June 15, 2001: Substantial Completion
Due to the nature of construction, as well as liability concerns, it will be necessary to
close the Sayside portion of Founders Park while the gazebo is under construction. If
additional information is needed, please feel free to contact me.
RMS/gf
Attachments
RMS00139
Cll
o
o
'1J Cll
m )>
~ Z
Z 0
Gl (fJ
~ ..., ()
~Cll~Cll-
...,-~ ...,
",OZi5-<
OZO...,O
00)>)>'11
'1J' ..., Cll ~
~g'11C<
'Orm
O~C)>Z
Z , Z::!...,
Z~OOc
06mzJJ
<",JJ )>
m (fJ
;: u
[D )>
C" JJ
^' ^
'"
'"
o
o
o
o
c
Q) Cll
-0:
(JJQ.
_ CD
~ ~
(JJ
C
0'
if>
r-
Ui'
ro
0.
o (JJ
~o
<0-
III CD
- 0.
C C
CD _
if> CD
'1J
Cll2
016
o ~
Q.[D
Ci
)>)>
o 0.
'^ 0.
o CD
o 0
'" 0.
- c
~3
CD ~
CD ,
Q..j>.
...,
o
ili
[D
0.
-<
CD
if>
~()
3 CD
v ::l-
ro 3
- 0
CD III
o -
o CD
(ti.o
if> ~
-<
CD
if>
o
c
Q) Cll
-Ci
(JJQ.
_ CD
~ ~
...,
o
ili
Cll
0.
)> OJ
(JJ JJ
.0 ()
c ()
III
ro 0
0
0. ;l
Gl ~
2 c
0.-
c 0
v
0
:J ()
0 0
'5
"
-<
CD
if>
()
o CD
if> ::l-
c =+;
Qj ()'
o III
o -
CD CD
o
~
-<
CD
if>
(JJ
C
0'
if>
r-
if>
ro
0.
-<
CD
if>
.j>.
()
[Do
.'0
a.. roO
if>
S.
--<
CD
if>
o (JJ
~"
<::r
Q) CD
- 0.
C C
CD _
if> CD
-<
CD
if>
m
)>;:::.
::t:;:::;.:"1:J
0.: '< c
Q)()O'
< ..... =-:
- '3' "
CD
-<
CD
if>
'1J
OJ2
0'0
o CD
0. ~
Cll
Ci
-<
CD
if>
'1J
~
o
:J roo
o "
g:~
CD III
0.0
C
Q)
-<
CD
if>
)>)>
" 0.
'^ 0.
o CD
o 0
'" 0.
- c
~3
CD ~
CD ,
Q..j>.
w
o
OJ
<J1
'"
CD
o
o
-<
CD
if>
~()
3 CD
v ::l-
eD 3
- "
CD Q)
o -
" CD
(5" 0
if> ~
-<
CD
if>
-<
CD
if>
Z
o
-<
CD
if>
Z
o
-<
CD
if>
()
o CD
if> ::l-
c ~
~ -.
Q) "
o Q)
o -
CD CD
o
~
-<
CD
if>
.j>.
()
OJ.g
0.: (5"
if>
S.
-<
CD
if>
m
)>;:::.
o;;.z '1J
0. C
Q)()O'
< ..., =-:
- '3 "
CD
-<
CD
if>
'1J
~
o
:J roo
o "
g:~
CD Q)
Q. 0
C
III
.j>.
.j>.
OJ
W
.j>.
W
o
o
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-_
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
AVENTURA, FLORIDA AWARDING AND LETTING A BID/CONTRACT
FOR BID NO. 00-10-26-2 BANDSTAND AT FOUNDERS PARK AT THE
BID PRICE OF $306,529 TO BRC CONSTRUCTION CO., INC;
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ASSOCIATED
CONTRACTS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO TAKE
NECESSARY AND EXPEDIENT ACTION TO CARRY OUT THE AIMS
OF THIS RESOLUTION; PROVIDING FOR THE APPROPRIATION AND
ALLOCATION OF FUNDS FOR SAID BID AWARD; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the City Manager of the City of Aventura, Florida, has, pursuant to
the various laws of the State of Florida and the Code of the City of Aventura, properly
solicited and accordingly accepted bids for BID NO. 00-10-26-2, BANDSTAND AT
FOUNDERS PARK; and
WHEREAS, sealed bids have been submitted to and received by the City
pursuant to the City's Invitation to BidlNotice to Bidders, specifications, proposals, and
requirements for the projecUwork as cited above; and
WHEREAS, staff has determined that BRC Construction Co., Inc., has submitted
the lowest responsible and responsive bid for said projecUwork; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission, upon the recommendation of the City
Manager, is therefore desirous of awarding said bid/contract to said lowest responsible
and responsive bidder;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF AVENTURA, FLORIDA:
Section 1: That bid/contract for Bid No. 00-10-26-2 BANDSTAND AT
FOUNDERS PARK, is hereby awarded to BRC Construction Co., Inc., in the amount of
$306,529.00.
Resolution No. 2001-
Page 2
Section 2: The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the
City, a contract by and between the parties embodying the terms, conditions,
specifications as set forth in the subject Invitation to Bid/Notice to Bidders, bid
specifications, bid proposal and bid requirements, or if a City prepared contract was
part of said bid proposal, said parties shall execute said prepared contract on behalf of
the City.
Section 3: That the City Manager is hereby authorized and requested to take
all necessary and expedient action to carry out the aims of this Resolution in awarding
this bid/contract.
Section 4: That the funds to be allocated and appropriated pursuant hereto
and for the purpose of carrying out the tenets of this Resolution shall be from the
General Fund Line Item No. 001-8050-572-6310 and the Park Development Fund Line
Item No. 170-5001-572-6310.
Section 5: This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its adoption.
The foregoing
moved its
resolution was offered by Commissioner , who
adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner
and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Commissioner Arthur Berger
Commissioner Ken Cohen
Commissioner Harry Holzberg
Commissioner Jeffrey M. Perlow
Commissioner Patricia Rogers-Libert
Vice Mayor Jay R. Beskin
Mayor Arthur L Snyder
Resolution No. 2001-_
Page 3
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of January, 2001
ARTHUR I. SNYDER, MAYOR
ATTEST:
TERESA M. SOROKA, CMC
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
CITY ATTORNEY
,
Florida Department of Transportation
JEB BUSH
GOVERNBfstrict Six
1000 N.W. 111th Avenue, Room 6207-E
Miami, Florida 33172
(305) 470-5466
THOMAS F. BARRY, JR.
SECRETARY
/..\.'d I
IDOl
',-i
SER:/ICC
, ,~
January 8, 200 I
Mr. Robert M. Sherman
Director, Community Services Department
City of A ventura
2999 N .E. 191 Street, Suite 500
Miami, Florida 33180
Dear Mr. Sherman:
At your request, the Department has reviewed the study, prepared by consultants for the City,
regarding the installation of guardrail along the north service road of SR 856.
The report is correct in noting that the guardrail does not meet the warrants for installation
and if installed would create a fixed object hazard. As such, the Department does not
recommend the installation of guardrail. The report goes on to mention other alternatives that
the City may wish to consider, such as relocation of the asphalt walkway north of the SR 856
right-of-way. This would certainly move the pedestrians further from the travel lanes.
In our meeting, you mentioned that the speed of the vehicles on the service road was a major
concern. I have asked our Traffic Operations Office to review this area to see ifthere are any
traffic calming devices, such as thermoplastic rumble strips, that we can place in the roadway
to slow the vehicles down as they use the service road. You should expect to hear from them
within the next few weeks.
If you have any additional suggestions or ideas that you would like us to consider, please
advise.
1in erelp
, //to
6: Pego, P.E.
Director of Operations
GP/ea
cc: Rory Santana, District Traffic Operations Engineer
www.dot.state.fl.us
S RECYCLED PAPER
CITY OF AVENTURA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Eric M. Soroka, City.
r
r f Community servi~
FROM:
Robert M. Sherman, Dire
DATE: November 16, 2000
SUBJECT: William Lehman Causeway Safety Improvements Study Update
This memorandum is to advise you of the latest developments in this project.
A few weeks ago, a meeting was held on site of the Turnberry Isle Resort and Club
grounds to physically walk the area, and to address the Country Club's concerns
regarding the impact the 13' easement will have on their property.
Extensive landscape and irrigation modifications will be required to the golf course to
accommodate this easement. In addition, we noticed an FPL transformer that would
have to be re-Iocated that was not contained in the study. The transformer location
itself isn't an issue, but the re-Iocations of the underground lines connected to the
transformer could be a major undertaking that will add significant costs to this project.
Our consulting engineers are researching these issues to determine what the financial
impact will be.
In an effort to resolve this issue, I have asked our consulting engineers to arrange a
face-to-face meeting with FDOT to personally discuss this situation, and hopefully
arrange a resolution that is acceptable to both parties. As you know, FDOT has
consistently taken the position of not permitting a guardrail in their right-of-way.
I will keep you informed of all further developments.
RMS/gf
C: Mark Castano, Keith and Schnars, PA
RMS00125
CITY OF AVENTURA
COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Eric M. Soroka, City a
/
r ,~
of C~m""ity se"~
FROM:
Robert M. Sherman, Di
DATE August 23, 2000
SUBJECT William Lehman Causeway Safety Improvements Study
Attached hereto for your information and review are two copies of the aforementioned
study.
In summary, the Keith and Schnars study suggests a 13' easement IS necessary from
Turnberry Isle Resort to install a guardrail, 8' asphalt path and privacy wall for the
Country Club It might be necessary to keep the existing 10' asphalt path as part of the
County bike path system. We need to have further clarification from FDOT and Miami-
Dade County Public Works to address this issue Keith and Schnars are researching
this issue.
ThiS re ',Qcation ,5 r,ecessary because FOOT :t;t' :-.,:-'~;:-~ tt-,c ;:,ositi'ln that a guardrail
is not necessary in this area. Extensive landscape removal would be required, as well
as re-grading the bank of the adjacent lake. Permits from DERM and FDOT would be
required as the stormwater drainage pipes need to be extended Turnberry Resort and
Country Club must approve all proposed improvements and provide the necessary
construction and maintenance easements prior to starting the project. The overall cost
is estimated to be $280,600 for construction only and includes $65,000 for the
decorative wall
RMS/gf
Attachments
RMS00068
KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A~
ENGINEERS - PLANNERS - SURVEYORS
August 30, 2000
/
vi
L / ['/YI5;"
L - <::..;/-" ''Y'S
. J 'Y"(V'
rA.,IC(v\."S v
t\S . )
.//
'<
,.i
Mr. Bob Sherman
City of Aventura
2999 N.E. 191 st Street, Suite 500
Aventura, Florida 33180
RE: Lehman Causeway Safety Improvements
Keith & Schnars Proiect No. 15414,70
Dear Mr. Sherman:
At the request of the City of A ventura, Keith and Schnars, P.A. prepared a feasibility study for the
installation of a guardrail for approximately 1,000 feet on the north side of the service road of the
Lehman Causeway. The installation of the guardrail would require the relocation of the existing
asphalt path outside of FDOT's right-of-way. During the preparation of the feasibility report many
agencies were contacted in order to determine their requirements for the proposed improvements.
Some of the agencies contacted relayed concerns relative to the proposed improvements. I received
a phone call from Mr. Jeff Cohen from Miami-Dade Public Works Department (MDPW) who had
heard abou' d--~ r;ossible proposed improvements to the Lehman CalJs~way nath.
lvL, ,---,-,'<<p vc.,"';i.... ......<l de h.l.j. st,;:.:;n the existing asphalt l' ,,".,j~"'.i_g ~...... ...__iJ '--._,_ ,;a.l 'J.~t!t was never
formally approved by his department. He explainec: that this may be due to the existing path being
located within FDOT right-of-way; therefore it is outside MDPW juri ,diction. Mr Cohen added that
if the path is moved outside FDOT"s right-of-,vay, to withj~ the Turnberry Golf Course, the path
would be in Dade County's jurisdiction and would need to meet MDPW criteria. The Lehman
Causeway path is included within the North Dade Greenway Plan to link US 1 and ALA. Mr. Cohen
told me to contact Mr. David Henderson (MPO) in order to provide me with a copy of the N011h
Dade Greenway Plan. Enclosed please find a copy of this plan.
According to MDPW's standards, the requirements for pedestrianlbicycle paths are: a ten (10) foot
minimum width path, and a two (2) foot minimum clear zone on each side. The existing Lehman
Causeway path and the proposed path do not meet these requirements. The area available for the
proposed work is very limited due to the existing lake within Tumberry Golf Club.
Should you have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact
us.
6500 North Andrews Avenue. Ft. Lauderdale. Florida 33309--2132
(954) 776.1616. (800) 488--1255. Fax (954) 771.7690
Mr. Bob Sherman
Lehman Causeway Pedestrian Safety Improvements/15414.70
August 30, 2000 - Page 2
Sincerely yours,
KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A.
E....n.~""rn-p~o"
ilL. ;/ ---;
I. W(
0;' --
Mark Castano
Project Engineer
cc: Amy Galvez - K&S
M :\Proj ~c l5\ 15 414\ 70\.sherrnan, 8 30. wpd
.' "5'
: -~.~~~-:~
i-I .,-flU
,(-! "../\R
LEHMAN CAUSEWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
FEASIBILITY STUDY
PREPARED FOR
THE CITY OF A VENTURA, FLORIDA
Prepared by
KEITH and SCHNARS, P.A.
/-^"'~ '1' d A
~. ~. ,:; ,.. . .;:' news venue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33309
(954) 776-1616
K&S PROJECT NO. 15414.70
August 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
I
ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..... ..... ...2
II PROJECT LOCATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2
III BACKGROlJND INFORMATION... ............. ................ ....... .. .2
IV EXISTING CONDITIONS ................................................ 3
V PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND SITE EVALUATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4
A. Impact to Drainage System .......................................... 5
B. Impact to Golf Course ...................................... . . . . . . . . 6
VI PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7
APPENDIX
Exhibit 1
Exhibit 2
ExhIbit 3 -
Location Map and Aerial Map
Existing Typical Cross Section
Proposed Typical Cross Section
M;\Projec15\l5414\70Ireport.wpd
Lehman Causeway Safety Improvements
K&S Project No. 15414.70
August 2000
Page 2
I. ABSTRACT
At the request of the City of A ventura, Keith and Schnars, P.A. has prepared a feasibility
study for the installation of a guardrail for approximately 1,000 feet on the north side of the
service road of the Lehman Causeway. The location for the installation of the guardrail is
coordinated with a proposed decorati ve wall to be installed along the south side of Turnberry
Resort in areas where the City wants to address pedestrian safety concerns. Additionally, the
proposed guardrail and existing pedestrian walkway would need to be located outside the
FDOT's right-of-way as per FDOT. The feasibility study consists of an analysis of the
existing conditions, proposed typical cross-section, permit requirements, and estimated
construction costs and impacts.
II PROJECT LOCATION
The project is located in the City of A ventura, Miami-Dade County, Florida, along the north
side of William Lehman Causeway; and will require cooperation from the Turnberry Resort
and FDOT.
(See Exhibit 1 - Location Map).
III. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
In the past five years there have been several occasions in which motorists have jumped the
curb onto the asphalt path while driving along the Lehman Causeway off ramp. Fortunately
M;\ProjectsI15414\70\report.wp;!
Lehman Causeway Safety Improvements
K&S Project No. 15414.70
August 2000
Page 3
none of these vehicles have impacted a pedestrian walking along the asphalt path.
Nevertheless, the situation has the potential to be very dangerous for pedestrians, and the
City of A ventura has requested pennission from the FDOT to install a guardrail along the
Lehman Causeway. Previous efforts to install a guardrail were denied by FDOT. FDOT's
position was based on the fact that guardrails are used to prevent out of control vehicles from
impacting a fixed object adjacent to the roadway. It is FDOT's opinion that since there are
no existing fixed objects adjacent to the roadway the guardrail itself may become a fixed
object causing an unnecessary dangerous condition. Keith and Schnars, P.A. has attempted
to bring this alternative back to life because a new decorative wall will be installed along
Lehman Causeway, and a guardrail may prevent out of control vehicles from impacting the
wall. Nevertheless, FDOT still maintains the position that the installation of the guardrail
is unnecessary.
IV. EXISTING COI\'DITIONS
At the present time the right of way includes a ten foot (10') wide asphalt pedestrian path,
a six foot (6') chain link fence, and approximately five feet (5') of a landscape buffer from
the back of the roadway curb to the asphalt path. The existing conditions within Turnberry
Resort and Country Club include a significant amount of landscaping and a storm water
storage lake. The lake is part of Turnberry's and FDOT's storm drainage system which
~:\Projects\15414\7O\n:jXlrt."'pd
"
Lehman Causeway Safety Improvements
K&S Project No. 15414.70
August 2000
Page 4
eventually discharges excess stormwaterinto the Intracoastal via two 72" pipes. (See Exhibit
2)
Presently, there is an effort to obtain an agreement between Tumberry and the City of
A ventura to install a decorative wall in a five foot (5') easement within Tumberry's property.
The City requested this easement in order to provide lighting improvements along the
existing asphalt path; in addition, the City will install a decorative wall within the easement
per Tumberry' s request.
V. PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS AND SITE EV ALUA TION
Due to the denial by FDOT for guardrail installation within the right-of-way, the City of
A ventura has requested K&S to study the feasibility of locating the guardrail outside the
FDOT's right-of-way. The proposed cross-section includes the installation of approximately
1,000 feet of an eight foot (8') asphalt path along witn a decorative wall and a guardrail to
be located outside of the Lehman Causeway right-of-way. (See Exhibit 3) Based on survey
information and field observation, K&S has shown the decorative wall to be installed along
the existing lake's top of bank. This layout would have minimal impacts to the
storagelvolume capacity of the existing lake. However, the proposed improvements will
require regrading and minor filling of the bank for proper drainage.
Mr. Wahid Nor from the Florida Department of Transportation's Permit Department was
contacted in order to determine the permitting requirements for the relocation of the
M :\Projects\15414\70Veport. wpd
Lehman Causeway Safety Improvements
K&S Project No. 15414.70
August 2000
Page 5
pedestrian path and the installation of a guardrail between the path and the roadway. Mr.
Nor informed K&S that if the guardrail is installed outside ofFDOT's right-of-way, FDOT
has no permitting jurisdiction.
A. Impact to Drainage System
The existing storm drainage system for Turnberry Resort and Country Club IS
connected by a series of lakes which store stormwater to be used for irrigating the
golf course. The drainage system's excess stormwater is discharged into the
Intracoastal waterway via two 72" pipes which are located in the vicinity of [he
proposed improvements. In addition, FDOT has two 36" stormwater pipes
discharging from the Lehman Causeway into the Tl1mb~rrv R~'nrt drainage system.
Based on the survey information and field observation, the proposed alternative will
have minimal impacts to the existing drainage system. However, it will be necessary
to regrade the top of bank of the lake which may require extending FDOT's outfall
pipes. Mr. Nor (FDOT) said that any extension or alteration ofFDOT's outfall pipes
will require an FDOT drainage permit.
M:\ProjectSI15414\70\rer-:'rt.wpd
Lehman Causeway Safety Improvements
K&S Project No. 15414.70
August 2000
Page 6
Finally, Mr. Sznol from the Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental
Resources Management (DERM) recommended K&S contact Mr. Thomas Checca
who was the design engineer for Tumberry Resort and Country Club. Mr. Checca
was contacted and added that the storm water system was designed to be a positive
drainage system because the lakes are used for irrigation and low levels of
salinization need to be maintained. Mr. Checca also stated the fact that the system
receives storm water from other sites (positive drainage system) and was approved
by SFWMD and DERM as an exception to their criteria. Mr. Checca also mentioned
that the drainage system for the golf course handles less storage than what is
normally required and the system is prone to flooding causing the golf course to be
closed for periods or time. On a conversation with Mr. David Bailey, Golf Course
Superintendent, he mentioned that no flooding has ever occurred in the vicinity of
the proposed improvements.
B. Impact to Golf Course
In order to construct the proposed improvements, it will be necessary to obtain a 13'
easement from Tumberry Resort and Country Club. It should also be noted that
extensive landscaping removal will be required within Tumberry' s property in order
to install the proposed improvements. Tumberry Resort and Country Club must
M:\Proje~'.$\15~\4.\1Q1.n,port_wpd
...
Lehman Causeway Safety Improvements
K&S Project No. 15414.70
August 2000
Page 7
approve the proposed improvements and provide the easement prior to continuing
with final design and pennitting.
VI. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATES
The preliminary cost estimate for this alternative is presented on the following page.
M:\PrujeCls\15414\70\repon.""JXl
.~',.
-tL:" . ~.",,-
..... '../' , '0.,'1;:'';';';''
S.>,;:....~::::.$
~
City of Aventura - Lehman Causeway Safety ImproveP.1ents
Preliminary Engineer's Opinion of Probab~e Cost
Keith and Schnan Project No. 15414.70
Proposed Improvements
I jt f d'j d d d
f
hal
h
nsta .atJ.on 0 guar ral an ecoratl've W3Ll, an re oeatian 0 aSDt t Det
'ill:TE:
8114100
((/ ........ ;K.~,:i(J$OJEC:r:.NQ~
~,... SafetvT. 154:1-1,,70
City of Aventura.'n~ri~'Countv. Florida
........
~ I :HECKED ~~.;~~ .......... ';:;::~;Ib ~).
lTElIl\. .mnT:riUCs
NO,.,: :iitAt, "LAB
I General ,
t SurvevlEn.,.;neerinc- Desi<J'T1 1 LS S30.000.00 SSO.OOO.OG
, Bonds and Insurance 1 LS S8.000.00 $8.000,00
3 :vrobilization 1 LS $15.00000 $15.000,00
. MOT i , LS S8.000.00, $8.00000
, i Field En".;neerino-l'T'estin" , 1 LS $8.0Qo.ool $8.000.0n
i ,
Subtotal I I $69,000.00
I i
Euthwork I
1 Excavate and Remoyal of ~iuck 500 CY i 510.001 $5.000,00
Z Embankment r>Iaterial (Fill) , S75 CY , $12.00 $4.500.00
, I
Subtotal i I $9,500.00
I I
i Pavin'" , I ,
1 I Pavement Removal i lllli SY , $6.00 $6.666.00
2 18' A..-nhalt Sidewalk 'New' I 8891 SY , 512.00 .~10.6613,on
I{" Limerock Base . 8891 1
" SY $3.00 $2.667.00
I i I
'Sub'~~ ....11 i $20.001.00
i
Miscellaneous
1 GradinlY :no CY $12.00 $4.-1:40.00
2 Ton Soil (4 inches) 2778 SY 51.50 $4.167,00
3 Soddin"" 2778 SY $2.50 $6.945.00
. Clearin" and Grubbin" I 1 LS $15.000,00 S15,OOO.00
5 Guardrail lOOG LF S20.00 $20.000.00
R Decorative Wall (Precast Wall Svst.) 1000 LF $65.00 $65.000.00
7 Landscaninc- 1 LS $30.000.00 $30,000.00
Subtotal I $145,552.00
I I
TOTAL $244.0S3,l)f)
Contin2"encv (15%) $36,607.95
1
GRAND TOTAL 'IE $280,660.95
0otes:
1 Existing pipe extensions not induded in cost estimate.
2. Decorative Wall cost based on price provided by Preeast Wall Systf:ms on VISiOO.
:3 Decorative WfI,!l. guardrail and I)' asphaLt path will b~ installr;d for loon LF
-1, ?roposed 8' asphalt ptlth will be located outside F'OOT righ.t-or~way and will connect back to ~he 10' existing path
Leh
Page 1
APPENDIX
~l.\PlVJ"~:,'\ 15~ 14\7IJrc:rorl. wpJ
EXHIBIT 1
Location Map
and
Aerial Map
M;IP, "',,,\15"'..\:lJ\r~I""1.wpJ
~I
Q.
"
'1
~
I;:
,.
-
'"
o
-
i5
o
o
~
"-
CO
"
:>>
c
CO
.'"
~
~
'"
"
'"
^
:
.
~
.
~
,
0
I ~
s
~
~
. ~
uq
hi,
, 'I
\
-:';>"1;1
8~~ CJ
~~~ t?
" '"
~~~;L7
~"'''
"mm
r"z
>>
('
~
z
~
~
~
,
o
~
>
z
o
~
o
c
z
"
~
,
\ .~~
\1 U
1 [ J
DO
DO II
EAST COUNTRy
CLUB OAIVE
O'AVliN'TUAA
LEHMAN CAUSEWAY
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
MIAMI-tIAOE COUNlY. R.O~1O
LOCATION PLAN
EXHIBIT 1
:;:;
n
z
~=i
,0(
qlln
'~~i~
I
I
!
;s::
l>
-c
I
'-
!
I ....
~;Ii~ .. SCh.lr" P.A. ~
i _."-,-,.~..
.,.".... .......... .._".L__.Il.lUllI.ll1l.....lTl1_
'"
4
4
~
~
'"
~
~
CD
o
?
ciS
o
.4
g
o
DO
'-"
~I
EXHIBIT 2
Existing Typical Cross Section
'''t\Pr<lj~1.;I~\15414\7(}","ep',."wN
'0,
3
,,' II
::.
;!:.
~
'"
...
~
...
(j
0
(j
0
n
'C
<C
0
'"
C.
<C
~
'-
c
?
'"
.'"
'"
0
0
0
0
'"
;:,
OJ
OJ
'"
II
II
I
I
i
II
;11
liD
i
i i
,
I
i
'" m ~. I
,. x '"
~ Vi on
m ~ ..,
'" z z
Cl Cl
~
m
'x
Cfl ~ ,
,..., i
~"_.._.,_.._-,,..._,,-,,_..- ";>'
'Z e- ~6;~ I ~
'Gl Z
m
Z !"L
0 :t:>cn. .
)>~~
:0 -< ,
...,
'I
i >1
Cfl
m z,
:0 '" "l
'" m
< " x
>- on
In ."
m --;
,m :;;
" OJ
1:0 "
:0 :r
m >-
l> ~ I z
0 m
;-l X e-
m :;;
'" '2j x
~ '" on ^
<: :;; --< ."
m OJ Z m
I" Cl z
,- > n "
,n c en m
l> z "
m '" :r
'"
r ,. c
'"
Cfl I z '"
D
m m I Cl
n x I S
..., on
0 ;-l m
'" "
Z '"
-,
l> ;:11
:!> >
~I
.,I! t
;
!ll
J
~ ~ : E ~ ~ :
Ii ~ti~. i
i '~II. __.... ....f..~_"'".. n..Jl.>>t-!ll.l'(~''''''''''
LEHMAN CAUSEWAY
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
<
~@i~~ ;ad ~S~W;I~, ~,!, rn0
--
::rrl'ry.l.\IEh-:1.JU
~C:Ol.M'l'.Ft.
PllhIttu . ,~....qU . IlIInT~
EXISTING TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
EXHIBIT 2
EXHIBIT 3
Proposed Typical Cross Section
.\1:\PrllJnl",IS..14170vep'.rt......pU
~
~
o
~
~
<
~.
"-
'"
""
8
~
~
o
n
D
<D
o
en
"-
<D
~
}>
c
<D
,""
"
g
""
"
o
:;;:
I
I
I
.
II! ~
nil
hi J
I J1
o
m
n
o
"
)>
..,."
<'"
mO
."
::;;0
)> en
rm
rO
"
'"
)> 0
(fltr;1"CJ ~
"'tl:D-<Ul
:J:m m
~5o 0 "'
1"1l -.,(")-1 m
""tI)>~ )>
16 )>~:D en
:rO~ ~
"1l '" m
0 " ~I
CJ1 c: ............
m z
[0 m
s;:
z" I
2 0", _
0 tIlo q
~:-o "
:I:J " '"
-I m 0
I~ "
~j 0
(f>
m
oxl 0
z I~ (1)-1(.1
0 n(f>1 0
.., )>:' J;
.., ."
m ." '"
0 Ip '" 0
0 '"
." )>
~ i 0 F'
(f>
r ':I:J -- m
m 10 m I 0
x '"
:l> in
0 :' m 5;
X C
0 in ro
~ '" ..., (f>
<' Z
m C>
"1l s;:
n
n z c
:l> m ;D
ro
, )>
CJ1 z
0
m m
In x C>
in c
,-I ..., ::j
10 0 m
'" '"
12 <'
m
I:l> s;:
1> z
m
LEHMAN CAUSEWAY
SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS
Ol' A,Vf"ffi,/l\o\, MI....'.lI...cJ.D~ COUNTY. FlC~ID
qlln
II ~ [~l
PROPOSED TYPICAL CROSS SECTION
~)(U!D(T ':l
: l bll~ u4 Sehilr#, P.A. ~
~ i ~ = '.=~-:::-,,_-._~
Date Posted: 09/07/2000
';'''
American Cancer Society Statement On The Pain
Relief Promotion Act
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Rachel Tyree
The American Cancer Society
(202) 661-5710
E-MAIL: rtyree@canceLorg
Washington, D.C. (September 6,2000) - The American Cancer Society, the nation's leading
voluntary health organization, today issued the following statement in response to comments
made by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) on the impact ofthe Pain Relief Promotion Act
(PRP A) on Quality of Care for People with Cancer.
"The American Cancer Society believes that proactive legislation to address the
undertreatment of pain must begin first with science, research, patients, and health care providers
and that greater involvement of the Drug Enforcement Agency in this area is not warranted at
this time. Still, we are open to working with both proponents and opponents on this issue.
"The Society recognizes that untreated or undertreated pain is often a determining factor
in a patient's decision to take or to consider taking life-ending action. While the Society strongly
opposes all patient deaths stemming from assisted suicides, we must give heavier weight to the
more than 1,500 people who die of cancer each day in this country - more than half of whom die
in pain unnecessarily. We believe that the best approach for helping people with cancer while
preventing assisted suicide is to adopt proactive policies that provide sufficient resources to
prevent and ameliorate pain and suffering in people with cancer.
"This year, more than 1.2 million Americans will be diagnosed with cancer and more
than 500,000 will die from the disease. The Society will continue to work on behalf of cancer
patients and survivors through our advocacy efforts at the federal and state level. We believe
that the Pain Relief Promotion Act as it now stands does not best serve the needs and interests of
cancer patients and survivors. As always, the American Cancer Society keeps the best interests
of cancer patients and survivors at the center of our policy considerations and will continue to do
so as this national discussion moves forward."
The American Cancer Society is the nationwide community-based voluntary health
organization dedicated to eliminating cancer as a major health problem by preventing cancer,
saving lives and diminishing suffering from cancer, through research, education, advocacy and
service.
For information about cancer, call toll-free anytime 1-800-ACS-2345 or visit the
American Cancer Society website at www.cancer.org:.
###
~tion Management;
~o; ~ .ftr.)"'~"~ ,
...,. ...............,,~\ "'"wOV...tI~ i
305 682 7031; Jan-29-01 12:39PM;
J.Ntt.tf"A. "=J) \.It ~ PAtt
3.1~ tBZ 1031; J'I'-M-01 8:27",; '-11. aft
=="":r
.......,. .........
,..... ..... "".
........
_.......,,,..~, l.., l ~
~ >>,2001
HaIL. MMmr ......
r........... C"dy of A,.......
A~awHIII
19H HI u"""
.... -
A\w'.~fL J3110
Dat~""'~
"l1IIIk.1'M" IDee"'. wi& ....0tIt ~('~tllCe....... ",ow --..
Pain It'''''~AcI.
11 it..'" ..... 1M Act.... _ of...... C8IJ1iIIA..... ~ .~lAl~1 forpbJ'&i~
&iI_ -~" it: .... ....,..... r ~,... ........,........
JIW 11--.... it,.... tJIW ....... riIk
w. .......U-.am of.... AIIIIlfil AiaIIIl .a._III tk. u.s.. ......... dill..
A........Cit7~ ~ . 1I_1................~il..~"'
C'NfMtpIlllll....iIlJJ ,.. ~ ....... or. ~ tk.;lIll .. it
j~".)fU.,lar~IL 11.,.."'AA
~
r
~~
z...:.
......;z
. . .....: .......
W~ . 80
n ;:j 0.. t:r ;J 'J"~ . .
. . ,...., .......
S M (fJ i1l ..... g.~ . S( Zz
~i1l1=L0'i1l 8 8- 2::: -
'" 5 OS. 0 e C/) - X
8~<o~ 0.. ~ '<: S ::r: n '"d i1l ...., .......
UlUl...............8~ cr >-< 'T' b ~ i1l ~ ~ l....I.~ r<
..., . i1l;:j . " '"d ~ ;:j i1l Z~ 0 0 ~
;:; S. ::l 8- '<j Q i1l ;:j ...... S- ~'~
!>:l !>:l M ::+ 0 n cr ::+ 5'
15 '"d ~ o. 8 !>:l M B '" >:::=
p..~~. :::;z n ~ ~tT1 i1l ~ ~ cr '" n r.
0... i1l c: 0 8 n
Qu15~ S' "~'<j ;:j ~ ~. as. ~~ M S' (D' M (1) ~ 5 tc~
N;:;B~~ i1l 0 '" ~
"'crg.on tr:J M M (1) r-..>
i1l ~ . I ~~ S i1l ..D ~ v .
~ i1l
0.. o. ~~i1l~15 n ~ ;:j c cr r- -:
S' ~.()'q ;:j cr '" M ro ~.......
M;:j cr ~ M '" 'JJ r. ~,'-""
'" ro 8- >-< S' n ~ 0... 15 i1l n i1l '" O. ::l : V
'" i1l
go..i1lg ~ "", '"d 0 f""'i,. Z
rc ~ ~ n ~ ~ ::l t:rl
n~~8~ "'""'~i1l t=t'~ 'JJ M r-.
....... n '"
O. M 0 8 0:::; 0... I-t ~. :::; '-....I
o 0 ik ~ . ;:jO'"dM :" 0 U e; Z
::l ...... '" ~ 0 n a 0 0 I-t
Q. 0 i1l
M :;:::::; I-t q~~~ '" .....
o (1) 0 0 n S. ~ 0 ""-
erg cr '"d ik.... . y' ~ ~ 0... ~
M ~'"8- :g.. S' ~
q ;:j S; ;:j s- .~.
~~~~ ~ '"
i1l " n i1l
3~~gs 8-: 15 :::r::
M
n ~
crro
(1) ~
o
..,
~
1J n'
::l. ......~
g ~ ro
-0' ~ c; ~
~w-'o'
I tll
030A
~ ~ -. r::"'o
.., (j) - ::J
~ (}111~"O
m~rr(f)
::J (j) W _. (1)
_. ()) W ::J ~.
0. 0...... ro 0
~())-....I;o..,
ro (OOI
00' ~ <g:
g (f)
::J (")
:T
8.
(f)1l~~~~~
.-+ tll _. 0'1 tll ......
6..gga;30~
ro - -0' 0'1 .-. 0 (")
::J ~ ^' N ..... 0 :T
.-+ '" I 'I c: tll
-""'}>'(j)r::J(1)
Jo' 0. ()) .""'_
~ :::. ~ 0 ~ '<:; ~
-. lS Ul ()) ...... r .
Q -;' m <cl~' 2;'
'::J 0
-..... 0 -' ;0 "0
<'..,0. 0
-.' < tll (j)
tllo< ro
::Jtllro o.::J
ro < _. _.
< -. Ul 0
< 0. 3 ..,
-. CD tll I
Kl r:: ::J ((5'
~. g :T
tll:T (f)
;0:-(1) (")
.., :T
8.
~
~
~
O~
~. ~
~ ~
'" ~.
t:; ~
~~
~ ~
c....;
~
~.
~
~
en
CO
::s
-.
o
..
Z
(D
..
>> ~ ~ ~>:g..;J :r: ~f:-O ?f~ r-T~CgS'"":1~@8S''"":1 D>-~
<; ::l if~Crb ~ ~ +:- ..., o 0 ~ . ::J~~ ,::,>::J
~ ...~ ::r:: ::l ~ . -. 2. :r: &r-T ,::,>&0 ('D ('D S~ 0 ('D
~ ~ ::l ::l a ('1 g.~.~~ ~00~,-<(fJ .nS- ~~
0 ~ 2 rb _. otrl
~..., O"'~ g.o...>-1 C ::J~ ~'-< ~ ~
~ 8. - ::l . Il> C 0 U '-<: 'TJ 0 n Z~ Ogr-To@o...('D(fJ~F;'
Ul srsSf
. 0 C/) "0 I'J) r-t rJJ i"""'t) ~ ........ <1 (fJ (:1
..., 0 ifOUl> 0 o lH~ ll. ~> (t'F;' ~ ('D ~ 8 ~ 8 -'0'8
n tT1 ..., rt~ ~U'rt
~: n p.. 5'- rb <; g lH ~ (fJo...('Dgr-T~r-T>-1 .~('D d~
r Il> >< rb S. g - .~ r. :r:z ........ '0 (fJ ~ ~ rt
- P. CJ j. &~ crq 8' F;' crq n Q1 QI-o
(1l CJ 0 o ~ R 2 aa\D(1l~ >u
::l P (fJ ('D CJ1 >-1 ('D ('D 0... >-1 >-1
co...., ..., i:Ij ~~ v ('D& (fJoo...~~o
:;: - g ~..., Il> ~ ?;io
;:J to (j) 0 1-". '"":1 o 0 'U S ~ 8.('D 8 ~ '-"E}~v~ s. o ~
0 r ;:J 8 Ul '"":1 S ~ W ~ 0 ~. ('D rt _ '< 0...
trI '< 0 "0 Zi:Ij a >-1 ~>-1 r-T'('D,-< 0 ('D
'Jl ~"O {j ..., ~ \D 8. r-t ::J '('D(fJ_O~(fJ
'V Ul Il> I'l> ~ ~ ~ Q.o ~ ~ S'~ c ('D ~
:>> i:Ij 0 zZ &; ~
..., o ::l n _. 8 ..., o ::JS'8q~ ,::,>F;' &~ ~
(1l "0 0... 51 &: ~
(f'j ..., ~ rb :J ...,.., ClUj ~~('D('D (:10>-1 ::J('D
5.: s;: ..., 0... (Jq 8' ~ 'V .- 0 ::l (fJ tTl::J >-1 ::l::J ~
(') ...::.. ('0 (JJ ~ 'V ;:J ........(fJ. S 8 ('D ~ 0 ........
::l ;;;- 2 s ~ - o o...~ ~ vr-T (fJ r'E}
n IV Vl crq ::J ::l (:1.~ (fJ ~
0 '-<: 8 ~ I'l> ::l n '-< ~ 0... 0... 0 ~ ~ 0
...., o . 0 ;:J
~ n. s' 0 0 S'('D ~ ::lo... g:.-..
"0 P 2- ~. 0
ff R Z
:J ~ 0
c..:3 n
'Jl "0 :>>
,.!., c "0
:5 q a
<t;g:
8 _!l
'"' " ;j
Cf::5.
;:J \JG >-<
~ ~ 0
. '-<' c
j g.
C >=::i
g ;:J
v;' ~
;:Jri
c..:>>
5. R
~ ~
&8
('; ~
Q~
.~2=
,..;., ,......
'"0'"":1
c_
>-l'TJ
~~
2eu
o
z
'(
>-:
o
~
Z
'Un~Z
~Oe=:o
o S n 'U
:J 0 n '"'
~ :;: n 0
N' ~ ;:J g:
n> u '-<: ~
c..00;:J
t=. c C .
;:::l n ...,.., .....J
':') Ul' ' j ;:J
o Ei < (1l
a PitTJn
:>> ::l ~ 0
g.~ ~ g.
::l ;:J...,..,n>
. n> _ 0
:;: ........ c
n> Z S'
crGJ",
0''-<: ~
'"' 0 C
'-<: C n
o ::l (5
en>,",
;., n> '"
0...
>
>-~
O::r:
0>-
C.....<
.....<.
.-
n'TJ
0-
<'?\
::aZ
co
:j~
l~"
~Z
C/)r,
'vv
'"":1
::r::
-
Z
Cl
~ ~~
;!?, I-j :r:
1 @~
~ 2::: 0
~ trI.o
'V
-
?:lH>-<:
:>> &; ~
<; '--- ~
(1) C\ 'U
'-<: V1-
o IV n
c I '"
;., g; (1)
::l 0 n
8 ~ ~
(') ~ 0
:>> (1) ~
::l ::l
0... f!,1. V
'U 0 ~
;:J ::l $.
o C\ 0...
::l V1 b:i
(t) lH S
::l n
S R"
u '"'
(1) ~
'"' H-
~g
trI-
~tt
8~
0'"":1
zo
C/)
.v~
,....
f\
i:Ij
Z
m
,~,
.I-M
l~"
o
~
d
0:
c:
Z
r,
'-'"
~~~n
o e:.' 0
:3 W ~:3
&2:0]
(t) (1) 'U (t
'" S Vl '"'
B- 0... (1) i,'5
o (1) 8'j
o '"' 0
r-'g..'"'
(1) :r:: '"
'" dQ' 8
C ;:J 0...
'U Vl g
~(1) n H-
;:J'"
. 0 0
_. 0 .....
0_,....,
~~~
..... ~
H- U
(1) (1) .
:>> n
n ;:J
;:J :>>
n> (1)
'"' -
'"
~~
O:r:
~2
C/)C/)
:r:C/)
oc
'"0'"0
C/)trI
'v~
-<
-
C/)
-
Z
GJ
'"":1
:r:
trI
n n Vl
..... ;:J ~
P. (1) C
N 1=1' 0...
g n (1)
'" 0 ::l
. S ur
:3 <:
8. g
~ 8
gas.
, '"
:>> n:
~ r.J)
tn. 0
g. :3
\JG (1)
o ~
Ei\JG
'" cr
(1) :>>
5' R-
'"' H-
o
'TJ~
0"1"'
~-
.....,>-<
~~
~~
~rr:
.v.....<
..,...;
-
m
~
o
o
-
Z
1""\.
'-'J
-l
"1"'
>-<
-
C/)
;J :t
....., I""'
," '--'
CT1 ~
'7
.-
C
r-,
, ,
::r::
o
r--.
'--'
..,..
r.;
~
.-
n
r,
'-'
C/)
~
',,'
0 >- (1) lH n -::c 'U 0 r,~
8 0 ' Zo 0 ~~
..... Z ~~8 s' Ei
n
0 ~ .. C\ v d~ n :>;'"
(D
Ei '" V1 '"' '"' ::l ..-.:
S n> IV . ~g '" 0 ~~
'" 8. b- V n a
r> 0 ~~
b:i 'Tj o 00 ~ ;:Jrb v'Tj
8 ~ $.
i ~ (t) 0.. >-l...... ~cR- 2::-
H- n> b:i -1'":rl "0 (') '"O~
:>>
~'" C/) ~ ~ s 0- ."-<; u c"
::c c 0- ,-
0... @g n zZ C "'"":2
0 ? ;:J ~. ;:J '-utJ v-;!?, t'Ij~
~ ....... o 0 n> C :>> ~.......,
......, g ~ '"' f', ~ ~
l.....,; 'V~
::l Z '-' '< ~
C ~~ C o . r\
n ~ Ei v
~'" n -l
Cf) 0 0 n as. tc
:>> "V 3 >-1 2:: o <;
~ 8~ C
0.. 0 >-<
'8: 'U 0
~ C c ?
n tT:J H- ,.....,
r> (D
" >-<