• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to footer

  • TTI Policy Center RSS Feed
  • TTI LinkedIn
  • TTI Facebook
  • TTI Twitter
  • TTI YouTube
  • TTI Home
  • Policy Research Home
  • Contact Us

Texas A&M Transportation Institute

Transportation Policy Research

  • Home
  • The Issues
  • Research
    • Research Testimonies
    • Finance
    • Freight
    • Congestion
    • Technology
    • Public Engagement
    • Transportation Data
    • Other Policy-Related Research at TTI
  • About
  • Contact Us
  • Finance
  • Freight
  • Congestion
  • Technology
  • Public Engagement
  • Transportation Data

Pedestrian Connections

Congestion

Introduction

A sidewalk is “the area where people interface with one another and with businesses most directly in an urban environment.”1 Pedestrian connections promote safe walking and include improvements such as:

  • Sidewalks
  • Intersection treatments.
  • Midblock crossings.
  • Walking tunnels and bridges.2

Sidewalks can be as narrow as 4 feet or can be a wide walkway serving a busy downtown or entertainment area.

Safeguards from vehicle traffic can improve pedestrian safety and the overall walking experience. They can also provide space for trees, lighting, benches, trash containers, and more. On local or collector streets, this space can be from 2 to 4 feet, with 5 to 6 feet needed on major streets.2 Transit stops may need additional space for people to board and exit, particularly when considering the needs of the handicapped.

Suitable pedestrian connections depend on future and present local traffic demands. Roads with auto traffic of less than 400 vehicles per day may not require sidewalks, but future growth should be considered.2 Sidewalks should exist along highways entering small towns and villages exceeding around 1,000 persons per square mile, where pedestrian routes are needed.2

The local and regional levels of government are responsible for the majority of planning for pedestrian connections. The Texas Department of Transportation’s (TxDOT’s) Guidelines Emphasizing Bicycle and Pedestrian Accommodations requires reviewing these plans when a new project is considered.3 For new construction projects in cities, TxDOT recommends adding a raised, 6-foot-wide crosswalk for pedestrian protection, in keeping with the Public Rights-of-Way Accessibility Guidelines.3

Improvements such as raised crosswalks employ traffic-calming features that eliminate the need for curb ramps. This can make crossing the street easier for pedestrians with assistive devices and can warn drivers of where to expect pedestrians.

Executive Summary

Target Market

Since every vehicle trip begins and ends with a pedestrian trip, pedestrian connections are effective practically everywhere. In terms of impacts on congestion and safety, the following are key areas of focus:4

  • Transit intersections and activity centers extend the benefits of pedestrian connections by:
    • Allowing greater access to all of a person’s needs.
    • Granting access to employment, residential, and other areas.
  • School approaches and business areas need pedestrian connections because they serve a large number of existing or potential pedestrian trips.

How Will This Help?

Pedestrian trips in crowded areas often replace vehicle trips, resulting in less congestion and pollution. The amount of change from vehicle to pedestrian traffic varies by local setting and pedestrian connection quality. However, simply providing a new connection will encourage walking.5

Implementation Examples

Austin, Texas
Austin experienced conflicts between nonmotorized users and vehicles on Lamar Boulevard, which crossed Lady Bird Lake and had 3.5-foot sidewalks. Austin used federal funding and local bonds to develop the Pfluger Pedestrian Bridge, a 700-foot-long structure crossing the lake. The bridge, which opened in 2001, connects businesses, shopping centers, and a rapidly increasing downtown residential population.

Walking and bicycling increased fivefold, reaching 4,000 to 5,000 users per day.4 Austin extended the bridge in 2011 to pass over a busy downtown roadway, Cesar Chavez Street.

National Pilot Program
The federal Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program studied improvements in pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in four cities, finding that walking traffic increased 15.8 percent from 2007 to 2013.6 Researchers estimated that in 2013, community members over the age of 16 walked an average of 25.5 miles that they would have driven in 2007.

Despite this increase in walkers, the pilot communities experienced a 20 percent decline in pedestrian deaths on roadways between 2002 and 20126 due to safety improvements and outreach. Researchers also suspect that the large numbers of pedestrians created greater driver awareness of nonmotorized road users.

Application Techniques and Principles

Pedestrian connections provide safe and comfortable access to businesses and residences, and in some cases, the law requires them. The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 brought about increased access for disabled persons. This act bans agencies from creating new facilities that limit access, but it does not require areas without pedestrian connections to include them. Planning is needed to prioritize pedestrian projects in order to take advantage of limited resources.

Like other approaches, planning for pedestrian connectivity requires:

  • Analyzing existing conditions.
  • Anticipating future demand.
  • Considering options for implementation.

Key opportunities for pedestrian connections include:

  • Planning for future development, such as including pedestrian connections in roadway projects.
  • Modifying connections where needed.

Davis, California, implemented these methods and has a well-connected system of pathways and sidewalks along roads. Paths can even connect suburban cul-de-sacs, further reducing vehicle travel.

Issues

Street Connectivity
Street connectivity can affect whether sidewalks reach pedestrian destinations without requiring additional walking. Routes that have short block lengths and sidewalks on both sides of the street shorten the paths needed. Most cities include minimum block length regulations. However, cities such as San Antonio, Texas; Cary, North Carolina; and Portland, Oregon, have a flexible standard on the number of street links to intersections. This “link/node ratio” gives designers flexibility when setting standards for transportation connectivity in a development.7

Right-of-Way Width
Ample right-of-way width can allow planning and development for pedestrian and other modes without significant trade-offs. However, urban areas may have to balance the needs of users to designate space for safe and comfortable pedestrian connections. When ample width does not exist, designers can expand the right of way through easements for off-street pedestrian connections. Other strategies to make connections with limited space include:

  • Redesign on-street parking to provide space for sidewalk construction.
  • Reduce the number or width of travel lanes.

Complex Intersections
Complex intersections, such as continuous flow and diverging diamond interchanges, can improve the movement of traffic, but they may require special design for pedestrian connections. Providing pedestrian refuges between opposing lanes can increase safety and minimize congestion.8 Additional signage and right-turn channelized islands designed to accommodate pedestrians can also limit the challenges pedestrians face when crossing complex intersections.

Who Is Responsible?

Transportation agencies that design and manage roadway space are responsible for implementing pedestrian connections. Cities often work with state departments of transportation on these projects, particularly when crossing state right of way, in order to provide a continuous facility for all road users.

Project Time Frame

Based on funding availability, individual sidewalk projects can take between three months to over a year for planning, public involvement, design, and construction. However, if a community has a well-researched plan identifying priorities and feasibility, it can implement projects more quickly and continuously.

Cost

Pedestrian connections include a range of types and costs. Average sidewalk development costs range from $32 per linear foot for concrete to $60 per linear foot for brick.9 Sidewalk intersection features such as curb ramps cost an average of $810 each, and pedestrian signals cost around $3,000 each, depending on the components.

Multi-use pedestrian and bicyclist paths average just over $120,000 per mile for unpaved trails. Boardwalks that may suit urban waterfronts can cost over $2,000,000 per mile. Pedestrian overpasses that provide separated connections across highways often range between $1 million and $5 million each, depending on site conditions and materials.9

Data Needs

Pedestrian and vehicle traffic counts taken before and after facility installation help evaluate traffic changes and resulting benefits.

Crash records, specifically causes of crashes, help researchers prioritize pedestrian features that can improve safety.

A pedestrian tracking survey can document where and how people cross a street, intersection, or plaza.1 Researchers can use this information to redesign intersections and locate crosswalks.

Pedestrian Connections Best Practices

  • Type of location: Urban and mixed-use areas with many destinations and any areas with existing or anticipated pedestrian demand.
  • Agency practices: Compare agency standards to updated design guidance and research.
  • Frequency of reanalysis: Annual review of volumes and crash data to accurately measure performance.
  • Supporting policies or actions needed: Update planning and design guidance to reflect recent standards and research. Review development requirements on street connectivity and pedestrian facilities. Provide training for transportation agencies to add pedestrian connections effectively and with minimal cost.
  • Complementary strategies: Bicycle/pedestrian education and encouragement, improved street connectivity, and transit-oriented development.

References

  1. National Association of City Transportation Officials. Urban Street Design Guide. Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2013.
  2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Guide for the Planning, Design, and Operation of Pedestrian Facilities. Washington, D.C., 2004. http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/1560512938.
  3. Barton, J. A. TxDOT Releases New Guidelines Stressing Inclusion of Walking and Biking. Bike Texas, 2011. http://www.biketexas.org/en/news/community/1076-txdot-releases-new-guidelines-stressing-inclusion-of-walking-and-biking.
  4. Pratt, R. H. Traveler Response to Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities and Programs. TR News, 2012, pp. 16–17.
  5. Pratt, R. H., H. S. Levinson, S. M. Turner, C. Yaw, and D. Nabors. Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities. In Traveler Response to Transportation System Changes. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2012.
  6. Lyons, W., B. Rasmussen, D. Daddio, J. Fijalkowski, and E. Simmons. Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program: Continued Progress in Developing Walking and Bicycling Networks—May 2014 Report. Report DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-14-04, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2014.
  7. Handy, S., R. G. Paterson, and K. S. Butler. Planning for Street Connectivity: Getting from Here to There. American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service, Chicago, Illinois, 2003.
  8. Hughes, W., R. Jagannathan, D. Sengupta, and J. Hummer. Alternative Intersections/Interchanges: Informational Report (AIIR). Report FHWA-HRT-09-060, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2010. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/09060/.
  9. Bushell, A. M. A., B. W. Poole, C. V. Zegeer, and D. A. Rodriguez. Costs for Pedestrian and Bicyclist Infrastructure Improvements. University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 2013.

Footer

Archives

  • News
  • Blog
  • Transport Trends