<%BANNER%>

The Effectiveness of Psychological Traffic Calming

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043858/00001

Material Information

Title: The Effectiveness of Psychological Traffic Calming A Comparative Case Study of Two Neighborhoods in Alachua County, Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (132 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Lisska, William R
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: calming -- livable -- pedestrian -- pedestrianism -- streets -- traffic -- woonerf
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The effectiveness of traditional traffic calming methods, usually involving horizontal and vertical deflections to slow automobiles, is thoroughly documented and well-proven. In recent decades, however, certain problems have surfaced with the traditional physical methods, such as deflection noise levels, driver discomfort, potential vehicle damage, and general unpopularity. Many authorities in Europe and Asia have begun to favor an expanded portfolio of psychological techniques, calming schemes that compel drivers to slow down rather than forcing them to. These psychological methods have been slow to catch on in the United States, and American examples are mostly limited to older, urban neighborhoods and the semi-public street networks of privately developed communities. Subsequently, studies of effectiveness are rare. My study examined the effectiveness of the psychological calming schemes in two different Alachua County, Florida, neighborhoods. The first, Haile Village Center, is a new urbanist development representing a meticulously designed, privately developed community. The second, a portion of College Park, is an older neighborhood a quarter mile north of the University of Florida. Research was conducted by administering a questionnaire to residents of both neighborhoods, performing a field survey to confirm the presence of psychological traffic calming, and recording speeds along four street segments, two from each neighborhood. Results indicated that the residents of both neighborhoods perceived their streets to be safe for pedestrians. Speeds on three out of four street segments were comparable to physical traffic calming design standards, best practice design speeds for residential streets, and the preferred speed of neighborhood residents (as determined by the questionnaire). The fourth segment was subject to a large amount of cut-through traffic and was only safe by the conventional 30 mph standard for residential streets. Overall, both the master-designed scheme of Haile Village Center and the informal scheme of College Park were effective at calming traffic and creating safe streets for pedestrians.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by William R Lisska.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Local: Co-adviser: Macedo, Joseli.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043858:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0043858/00001

Material Information

Title: The Effectiveness of Psychological Traffic Calming A Comparative Case Study of Two Neighborhoods in Alachua County, Florida
Physical Description: 1 online resource (132 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Lisska, William R
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2011

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: calming -- livable -- pedestrian -- pedestrianism -- streets -- traffic -- woonerf
Urban and Regional Planning -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Urban and Regional Planning thesis, M.A.U.R.P.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: The effectiveness of traditional traffic calming methods, usually involving horizontal and vertical deflections to slow automobiles, is thoroughly documented and well-proven. In recent decades, however, certain problems have surfaced with the traditional physical methods, such as deflection noise levels, driver discomfort, potential vehicle damage, and general unpopularity. Many authorities in Europe and Asia have begun to favor an expanded portfolio of psychological techniques, calming schemes that compel drivers to slow down rather than forcing them to. These psychological methods have been slow to catch on in the United States, and American examples are mostly limited to older, urban neighborhoods and the semi-public street networks of privately developed communities. Subsequently, studies of effectiveness are rare. My study examined the effectiveness of the psychological calming schemes in two different Alachua County, Florida, neighborhoods. The first, Haile Village Center, is a new urbanist development representing a meticulously designed, privately developed community. The second, a portion of College Park, is an older neighborhood a quarter mile north of the University of Florida. Research was conducted by administering a questionnaire to residents of both neighborhoods, performing a field survey to confirm the presence of psychological traffic calming, and recording speeds along four street segments, two from each neighborhood. Results indicated that the residents of both neighborhoods perceived their streets to be safe for pedestrians. Speeds on three out of four street segments were comparable to physical traffic calming design standards, best practice design speeds for residential streets, and the preferred speed of neighborhood residents (as determined by the questionnaire). The fourth segment was subject to a large amount of cut-through traffic and was only safe by the conventional 30 mph standard for residential streets. Overall, both the master-designed scheme of Haile Village Center and the informal scheme of College Park were effective at calming traffic and creating safe streets for pedestrians.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by William R Lisska.
Thesis: Thesis (M.A.U.R.P.)--University of Florida, 2011.
Local: Adviser: Steiner, Ruth L.
Local: Co-adviser: Macedo, Joseli.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2011
System ID: UFE0043858:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAFFIC CALMING: A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY OF TWO NEIGHBORHOODS IN ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA By WILLIAM RETHERFORD LISSKA A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2011

PAGE 2

2 2011 William Retherford Lisska

PAGE 3

3 To my par ents, Lawrence and Emily Lisska

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS First and fore most, I want to thank my family for their love, support, and patience through my extended education. Suffice to say, this would not have been possible without them. I would like to thank my committee chair, Dr Ruth Steiner, for leading me to my topic and helping me to better develop my research question and methodology. Likewise, I thank my committee co chair Dr. Joseli Macedo, for assisting me in refining my scope and for challenging me to look further. Penultimately, I want to thank my friends for thei r endless encouragement. Their enthusiasm frequently fed my own, making this effort much easier Finally, I wish to express special thanks to my urban and regional planning classmates for making my graduate education such a great experience. It was an unfo rgettable two plus years.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 7 LIST OF FIGURE S ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 8 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ................................ ................................ ........................... 10 ABSTRACT ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 11 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 13 The Need for Safe, Livable Streets ................................ ................................ ......... 13 Research Question and Study Objectives ................................ .............................. 14 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 16 The Urban Street as a Public Place ................................ ................................ ........ 16 The Outdoor Room ................................ ................................ ........................... 17 Old versus New ................................ ................................ ................................ 18 Pedestrians at Risk ................................ ................................ ................................ 20 Traffic Calming Origins and Principles ................................ ................................ .... 21 Psychological Traffic Calming ................................ ................................ ................. 22 The Woonerf Concept ................................ ................................ ............................. 24 ................................ ................................ ........ 26 State of Practice of Psychological Traffic Calming in the United States ................. 27 3 METHODOLOGY ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 32 Research Question ................................ ................................ ................................ 32 Study Areas ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 32 Introduction to Haile Village Center ................................ ................................ .. 32 Introduction to the College Park Neighborhood ................................ ................ 33 Approach ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 33 Conceptual Framework ................................ ................................ .................... 33 Methodology Design and Assessment Process ................................ ............... 34 Questionnaire ................................ ................................ ............................. 35 Field survey ................................ ................................ ................................ 37 Spot speed studies ................................ ................................ .................... 38

PAGE 6

6 4 RESULTS ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 48 Questionnaire Results ................................ ................................ ............................. 48 Demographics ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 48 Travel and Modal Tendencies ................................ ................................ .......... 49 Travel Behavior and Collision Reports ................................ ............................. 49 Safety Perceptions ................................ ................................ ........................... 50 Field Survey Results ................................ ................................ ............................... 51 Haile Village Center ................................ ................................ .......................... 51 College Park Study Area ................................ ................................ .................. 54 Spot Speed Study Results ................................ ................................ ...................... 57 5 DISCUSSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 73 Perception of Safety ................................ ................................ ............................... 73 Driver Behavior ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 74 Speeds Compared to Physical Traffic C alming ................................ ....................... 75 Speeds Compared to Design Best Practices and Livable Street Standards ........... 76 Speeds Compared to Desired Levels of Residents ................................ ................ 77 Formal versus Informal Psychological Schemes ................................ .................... 78 Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 81 Li mitations ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 83 6 CONCLUSION ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 90 APPENDIX A RESEARCH QUESTIONNAIRES ................................ ................................ ........... 92 B V ISUAL INVENTORY OF STUDY AREAS ................................ ........................... 103 C SPOT SPEED STUDY DATA ................................ ................................ ............... 105 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 129 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 132

PAGE 7

7 LIST OF TABLES Table page 4 1 Questionnaire send out and response rates ................................ ....................... 71 4 2 Summary of spot speed study results ................................ ................................ 72 5 1 Summary of safety perceptions ................................ ................................ .......... 87 5 2 Design best practice and livable street speeds compared to segment results ... 88 5 3 Segment speed results compared to desired neighborhood speed .................... 89 5 4 Street segment traffic volumes ................................ ................................ ........... 89 C 1 Distribution table for SW 91 Terrace AM spot speed study .............................. 105 C 2 Distribution table for SW 9 1 Terrace PM spot speed study .............................. 107 C 3 Distribution table for SW 91 Terrace combined spot speed study .................... 109 C 4 Distribution table for SW 91 Drive AM spot speed study ................................ .. 111 C 5 Distribution table for SW 91 Terrace PM spot speed study .............................. 113 C 6 Distribution table for SW 91 Te rrace combined spot speed study .................... 115 C 7 Distribution table for NW 15 th Street AM spot speed study ............................... 117 C 8 Distribution table for NW 15 th Street PM spot speed study ............................... 119 C 9 Distribution table for NW 15 th Street combined spot speed study ..................... 121 C 10 Distribution table for NW 13 th Terrace AM spot speed study ............................ 123 C 11 Distribution table for NW 13 th Terrace PM spot speed study ............................ 125 C 12 Distribution table fo r NW 13 th Terrace combined spot speed study .................. 127

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Pedestrian fatality probability if hit by motor veh icle, b y speed of motor vehicle ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 31 2 2 Minimum stopping dis tance by speed of motor vehicle ................................ ...... 31 3 1 Haile Village Center location ................................ ................................ ............... 41 3 2 C ollege Park study area location ................................ ................................ ........ 42 3 3 Casual ar row diagram of conceptual model ................................ ....................... 43 3 4 Haile Village Center study segments ................................ ................................ .. 44 3 5 College Park study segments ................................ ................................ ............. 45 3 6 Haile Village Center speed study strategy ................................ .......................... 46 3 7 College Park speed study strategy ................................ ................................ ..... 47 4 1 Questionnaire: gender of respondents ................................ ............................... 58 4 2 Questionnaire: age of respondents ................................ ................................ ..... 58 4 3 Questionnaire: education of respondents ................................ ........................... 59 4 4 Questionnaire: Haile Village Cen ter modal tendencies ................................ ....... 60 4 5 Questionnaire : College Park modal tendencies ................................ .................. 60 4 6 Questionnaire: Haile Village Center driver behavior ................................ ........... 61 4 7 Questionnair e: College Park driver behavior ................................ ...................... 61 4 8 Questionnaire: Haile Village Center collisions ................................ .................... 62 4 9 Questionnaire: Haile Village Center collisions ................................ .................... 62 4 11 Questionnaire: College Park safety perceptions ................................ ................. 64 4 12 Haile Village Center t ravel p atterns ................................ ................................ .... 65 4 13 Plan view of Haile Village Center street alignments and building fo otprints ....... 66 4 14 Section profile of Haile Village Center street geometry ................................ ...... 67

PAGE 9

9 4 15 College Park Study Area t ravel p atterns ................................ ............................. 68 4 16 Plan view of C ollege Park street alignments and building footprints ................... 69 4 17 Section profile of College Park street geometry ................................ .................. 70 5 1 Section profile v iews of NW 15 th Street before and after treatment .................... 85 5 2 Plan view of NW 15 th Street after design recommendations ............................... 86 A 1 Southbou nd pr ogression of SW 91 Terrace and SW 91 Drive ......................... 103 A 2 Northbound progression of NW 15 th Street and NW 13 th Terrace ..................... 104 C 1 Distribution c urves for SW 91 Terrace AM spot speed study ........................... 106 C 2 Distribution curves for SW 91 Terrace PM spot speed study ........................... 108 C 3 Distribution cur ves for SW 91 Terrace combined spot speed study ................. 110 C 4 Distribution curves for SW 91 Drive AM spot speed study ............................... 112 C 5 Distribution c urves for SW 91 Drive PM spot speed study ............................... 114 C 6 Distribution curves for SW 91 Drive combined spot speed study ..................... 116 C 7 Distribution c urves for NW 15 th Street AM spot speed study ............................ 118 C 8 Distribution curves for NW 15 th Street PM spot speed study ............................ 120 C 9 Distribution c urves for NW 15 th Street combined spot speed study .................. 122 C 10 Distribution curves for NW 13 th Terrace AM spot speed study ......................... 124 C 11 Distr ibution curves for NW 13 th Terrace PM spot speed study ......................... 126 C 12 Distribution curves for NW 13 th Terrace combined spot speed study ............... 128

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF ABBREVIATION S AS CE American Society of Civil Engineers FDOT Florida Department of Transportation ft feet (unit of measure) ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers m ph miles per hour (unit of measure) NAHB National Association of Home Builders NHTSA National Highway Traf fic Safety Administration RoSPA Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents TRL Transport Research Laboratory ULI Urban Land Institute

PAGE 11

11 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillm ent of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning THE EFFECTIVENESS OF PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAFFIC CALMING: A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY OF TWO NEIGHBORHOODS IN ALACHUA COUNTY, FLORIDA By William Retherford Lisska December 2 011 Chair: Ruth Steiner Cochair: Joseli Macedo Major: Urban and Regional Planning The effectiveness of traditional traffic calming methods usually involv ing horizontal and vertical deflections to slow automobiles, is thoroughly documented and well prove n. In recent decades, however, certain problems have surfaced with the traditional physical methods, such as deflection noise levels driver discomfort, potential vehicle damage and general unpopularity Many authorities in Europe and Asia have begun to f avor an expanded portfolio of psychological techniques, calming schemes that compel drivers to slow down rather than forcing them to. These psychological methods have been slow to catch on in the United States and American examples are mostly limited to o lder, urban neighborhoods and the semi public street networks of privately developed communities Subsequently studies of effectiveness are rare. My study examined the effectiveness of the psychological calming schemes in two different Alachua County, Flo rida neighborhoods The first, Haile Village Center, is a new urbanist development represent ing a meticulously designed, privately developed community. The second, a portion of College Park, is an older neighborhood a quarter

PAGE 12

12 mile north of the University of Florida. Research was conducted by administering a questionnaire to residents of both neighborhoods, performing a field survey to confirm the presence of psychological traffic calming, and recording speeds along four street segments two from each neigh borhood Results indicate d that the residents of both neighborhoods perceived their streets to be safe for pedestrians. Speeds on three out of four street segments were comparable to physical traffic calming design standards, best practice design speeds fo r residential streets, and the preferred speed of neighborhood residents (as determined by the questionnaire). The fourth segment was subject to a large amount of cut through traffic and was only safe by the conventional 30 mph standard for residential str eets Overall, both the master designed scheme of Haile Village Center and the informal scheme of College Park were effective at calming traffic and creatin g safe streets for pedestrians.

PAGE 13

13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Need for Safe, Livable Streets As we co ntinue to embrace the automobile as the primary mode of transportation on streets in the United States, the safety and overall experience of the pedestrian is often relegated. In describing the effect of this era of automobile priority, writer Tom McNichol (2004) neighborhoods, discouraging pedestrian activity, and destroying the human scale of the urban environment. To improve safety and general living conditions, municipalities all across t he country have implemented transportation policies and programs that aim to slow auto mobile movement or divert traffic to other streets. This practice, called traffic calming, originated in Europe in the 1960s and was imported to the United States in the 1970s to treat residential streets where excess vehicle speed or traffic volum e was considered inappropriate. T raffic calming methods used to slow traffic are mostly physical and force drivers to slow down through vertical or horizontal deflection The com mon speed hump is a classic example of a vertical deflection; to travel over the hump with minimal discomfort and without inflicting damage to the undercarriage of a low riding vehicle, a driver must reduce his or her speed. Horizontal deflection methods a re typically installed on straight roadways that might otherwise encourage driver acceleration. The chicane, an area of raised curb that extends into the roadway and forms a tight curve, force s drivers to slow while deflecting inward toward the narrower po rtion of the street. In the early 1980s, livable streets expert Donald Appleyard examined traffic calming and noted the distinction between physical and psychological control methods

PAGE 14

14 By his definition, psychological traffic calming consisted chiefly of si gns and required driver obedience and enforcement to succeed; more flexibility was afforded to the driver and emergency services, but pedestrians could not be certain of effective control (Appleyard, 1981, p. 295). Physical controls were deemed to have a m ore definite (Appleyard, 1981, p. 295). In recent decades, however, additional problems have surfaced with the physical methods of traffic calming, and many authorities in Europe and Asia have begun to favor an expanded portfolio of psychological techniques. Meanwhile, policy in the United States has been slow to catch up, and domestic examples of these new methods primarily exist within the street networks of private devel opments. The psychological traffic calming movement contends that non physical means can produce a comparable degree of control that is more acceptable to both pedestrians and motorists (Kennedy, 2005) However, few studies based in the United States have confirmed if psychological traffic calming schemes actually produce slower traffic or make neighborhood residents feel that th eir streets are safe. Research Question and Study Objectives My study attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of psychological tra ffic calming methods within two distinct neighborhoods in Alachua County, Florida. The first neighborhood is Haile Village Center, a new urbanist community within the larger Haile Plantation master planned community. The second is a section of the College Park Neighborhood in Gainesville, nearby to the University of Florida. In determining the effectiveness of psychological traffic calming in these neighborhoods, the following questions were addressed:

PAGE 15

15 Do neighborhood residents feel safe among calming schem es that are more psychological than physical? Does driving behavior change when drivers enter the psychologically calmed neighborhoods? Do psychological calming schemes slow traffic to levels similar to that of physical calming? Do psychological calming sc hemes keep traffic at speeds comparable to residential street design best practices? Do psychological calming schemes slow traffic to levels acceptable to neighborhood residents? Does successful psychological calming require intensive design and infrastruc ture, or can it also be successful in locations with few formal design elements? The specific approach to answering these questions involve d a perceptual survey of neighborhood residents, a field survey of calming elements, and observations of traffic spee ds. If results show that psychological calming is effective, my study may help create a jumping off point for psychological traffic calming research in the United States

PAGE 16

16 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW To understand the development and theory of psychological traffic calming methods, the evolution of street design and the conditions that necessitated and continue to necessitate, conventional traffic calming methods must be understood as well. In this context, the development and philosophy of psychological tr affic calming can be examined. The Urban Street as a Public Place The traditional role of the street in society is multi faceted. In addition to supporting movement and providing access, it is a place for social interaction, commerce, recreation, enjoyment and events. Just as any park or plaza, the street is an important part of the public realm. Urban designers that promote the idea of the street as an important public space contrast public utilization in the past with that of the present. Lennard and Len nard (1995) in its squares and streets, in the places adjacent to the cathedral or important civic buildings, and on streets where people lived, and where shops and works hops were automobile has made streets useless for social and civic functions, instead becoming receptacles for car movement and storage (L ennard & Lennard, 1995, p. 83). Contemp orary street designs may still designate a portion of the right of way as fa section. This vehicle sp ace adds up. In Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA, street and highway right of

PAGE 17

17 ways comprise 26% of city land area (Southworth & Ben Joseph, 2003, p. 5). Furthermore, residential streets in the United States, which are often underutilized as public space, are a lso underutilized by the automobiles they have been designed to support. These residential streets carry only 15% of total vehicle miles traveled, despite comprising 80% of national road miles (Southworth & Ben Joseph, 2003). Due to current st atus as underutilized space, Hoyle (1995) implores us to, recognize streets as a place [for living] rather than a channel created only for the benefit of car and driver (p. 16). support additional au for people degrades as well. The Outdoor Room When conceptualizing the design and character of streets and other public space, urban design theorists often compare the space to a room of a house, effectively, an provision of the outdoor living room were built into the design of streets in older cities. He goes on to identify the elements that make up the outdo or room as floors, walls, doors and windows, entryways, ceilings, nooks and crannies, and furniture. Floors and furniture (and in some cases entryways, ceilings, and nooks and crannies) correlate to infrastructural elements commonly contained within the st reet right of way. The floor is the surfacing and landscaping of the street. For pedestrians, bicyclists, and even motorists, the floor can provide a varied sensual experience (Lennard & Lennard, 1995; Engwicht, 1999). Additionally, the floor can afford a sense of place or information about the history of the street (Lennard & Lennard, 1995, p. 73). Lennard and Lennard (1995) go so far as to suggest that the design and quality of a street s

PAGE 18

18 gree of to pavement design and detail found in Western Europe: In Baden Baden, Germany, the floor is laid in a pretty scallop design of pink and white stones. In Dus seldorf, light and dark grey granite stones are highlighted by green moss that grows in the cracks. In Karlsruhe, geometric designs in natural stone are inlaid in the reconstructed stone paving. In the historic city of Strasbourg, France one finds echoes o natural stone mosaic designs set in the pedestrian street paving. (Lennard & Lennard, 1995, p. 73) Potentially, the street floor is just as much a palette for expression or a carpet for activities as it is a utility of movement. Street furniture is a collective term used to refer to publicly used street fixtures: seating, mailboxes, street lights, drinking fountains, art installations, and so on. The dynamic functionality of this street furniture is comparable to that of house furniture Engwicht (1999) identifies the immediate function (seating to sit on), aesthetic function (providing character or telling a story), social function (seating for people watching, provoking conversation, or allowing reflection), and a movement or direction function (placement of furniture directs and channels pedestrian flows) (p. 105). Old versus New Camillo Sitte (1843 1903) was one of the first urban design theorists to comment on the value of historic street construction and layout. To Sitte, the info rmal street designs and layouts of the Middle Ages were superior to more formalized, geometrical Joseph, 2003, p. 51). Raymond Unwi n (1863 1940), known for his contributions to the Garden City movement, agreed with this sentiment. He wrote:

PAGE 19

19 There can be no doubt that much of the interest of the old irregular streets and towns lies in the sense of their free, spontaneous growth, thei r gradual extension under changing influences, much of which must be lacking in the case of a town built to order and according to a prearranged plan. (as cited in Southworth & Ben Joseph, 2003, p. 51) Others vehemently opposed traditional and organic stre et design as impedance to modern society and progress. Architect and designer Le Corbusier (1887 1965) was one of the most vocal opponents. To him, straight lines represented the most efficient movement of traffic, while curves and organic configurations Joseph, 2003, p. 79). Like Sitte and Unwin, he read into street design as a reflection of human nature and aspirations. Accordingly, y go lucky heedlessness, of looseness, lack of concentration and animality. The straight is a reaction, an action, a positive deed, the result of self (as cited in Southworth & Ben Joseph, 2003, pp. 79 80). The natural attr action of pedestrians to curves and unfolding streetscapes was belittled. To Le Corbusier, curves were only appropriate for Ben Joseph, 2003, pp. 80). s ideas were famously derided when he showcased them in traffic engineering and road and highway planning practices (Southworth & Ben Joseph, 2003). Highways are grade sep arated from other streets and are designed for limited access to maximize automobile mobility. In the United States, suburban streets have a distinct hierarchy to satisfy automobile movement as the expense of pedestrian and non motorized access. The right of way of a major arterial road can exceed 170 feet in some instances, a daunting task for the crossing pedestrian.

PAGE 20

20 Pedestrians at Risk In the United States, street design has evolved to accommodate the needs of automobiles, often at the expense of pedestr ian needs. According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) traffic crashes caused 59,000 pedestrian injuries and 4,092 pedestrian deaths in 2009 (2010, p. 1). Though both the total number of traffic related fatalities and pedestria n traffic fatalities have decreased since 2005, pedestrian fatalities have co nsistently represented 11% to 12% of the total (NHTSA, 2010). Florida may be more dangerous for pedestrians than other states. While the 2009 national average for pedestrian fatal ities per 100,000 population was 1.33, the rate for Florida was almost double at 2.51, the highest rate of any state in the nation (NHTSA, 2010). Furthermore, a study by the Florida Department of ty rate is consistently above the national average and often the highest among the states. Upon looking into the demographics of pedestrian crashes, it becomes clear that children age 15 and under and adults age 65 and up, two groups that may be more likel y to walk places, are particularly at risk. In 2009, The 15 and y ounger age group represented 25% of all pedestrians injured in traffic crashes; meanwhile, the 65 and up group represented 19% of all pedestrian fatalities and 8% of all ped estrian injuries ( NHTSA, 2010). High p edestrian injury and fatality rates have frequently been related to high vehicle speeds (Tolley, 1997, p. 48). A study by the United Kingdom Department of Transportation found that the probability of death for a pedestrian hit by a moto r vehicle dec rease significantly with speed: 85% at 40 mph, 45% at 30 mph, and only 15% at 20 mph (1987). This relationship is summarized in Figure 2 1. Findings from a more recent

PAGE 21

21 study suggest that the risk of fatality increases very gradually up to 30 m ph but then increases between 3.5 and 5.5 times from 30 mph to 40 mph (Richards, 2010). The minimum required stopping distance for a motor vehicle also increase significantly with vehicle speed. As seen in Figure 2 2, driver response time and the time it t akes to come to a complete stop after first applying the brake results in a total stopping distance of 40 feet at 20 mph, but rises to three times that amount (1 20 ft) at 40 mph (NHTSA, 2006). Children may be more susceptible than the average adult on stre ets with high speed. One study notes that the neural mechanisms that detect the looming of a moving object, such as a speeding automobile, are not fully developed until adulthood ( Wann, Poulter, & Purcell, 201 1 ). Based on a perceptual experiment with parti cipants ages 6 th r ough 11 the study suggests that children may not perceive that a vehicles is approaching if it is traveling in excess of 20 mph ( Wann, Poulter, & Purcell, 201 1 ). A child may be naturally less equipped than an adult to make judgments abou t crossing the str eet during fast moving traffic. Traffic Calming Origins and Principles In the early 1970 s, the need for safer streets for pedestrians led American transportation engineers to conceive street treatments that would reduce speeds and traffic volumes in residential neighborhoods and areas of high pedestrian activity (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] & Institute of Transportation Engineers [ITE] 1999). Since then, traffic calming has evolved to include other purposes. The Florida Departme nt of Transportation (FDOT) assigns four main goals to traffic calming (1999): Improve safety for people, especially children, by controlling conflict points, reducing veh icle speeds and vehicle volumes; Improve the physical environment by lowering vehicle generated n oise, pollution, and disruption;

PAGE 22

22 Create a green and inviting streetscape; Increase security by bringing back a higher number of pedestrians. As mentioned in Chapter 1, many traditional physical calming measures have been designed to induce hor izontal and vertical deflections in passing vehicles, forcing slow down (Kennedy, 2005). However, multiple problems have been associated with physical traffic calming techniques, among them (a) increased vehicle emissions due to abrupt acceleration and dec eleration; (b) noise pollution from vehicles crossing vertical deflections; (c) vehicle damage and occupant discomfort incurred from crossing deflections at inappropriate speeds; (d) construction costs; (e) unwanted visual intrusion from required signing; (f) unpopularity with motorists and residents (Kennedy, 2005). A common assumption is that, while speed humps are unpopular with cut through drivers, they are embraced by residents living nearby. On the other hand, one study found that many residents also object to speed bumps due to noise, color, visual clutter from required signage, and/or increased emissions (Du, Ivan, Gardner, & Aultman Hall, 2002). The same study noted that residents preferred traffic calming devices that also improved the aesthetics of their living environment (Du, Ivan, Gardner, & Aultman Hall, 2002) Traffic calming experts such as Hoyle (1995) have implored American society to recognize streets as places for living rather than a channel s created only for the benefit of car and dri ver However many physical traffic calming measures only address vehicle speeds and do little else to buil d community and sense of place. Psychological Traffic Calming In the wake of the issues with traditional, physical approaches, a new generation of t raffic calming policy has arisen that seeks to avoid horizontal and vertical deflections. Some refer to this new wave of utilizing driver uncertainty as dynamic traffic calming

PAGE 23

23 (Hayward & McGlynn, 1993). Major organizations in the United Kingdom such as th e Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) refer to the measures as psychological traffic calming (Kennedy, 2005). These two organizations outlined the following principles of psychological traffic i ntervention (Kennedy, 2005 p. 4 ): More complex environments tend to be associated with slower driving speeds, the likely mechanisms being increases in cognitive load and perceived risk ; Natural traffic calming such as a hump back bridge or a winding road can be very effective in reducing speeds, as well as being more acceptable to drivers. Carefully designed schemes, using the properties of natural traffic calming, have the potent ial to achieve a similar effect; Emphasizing changes of environment e.g. high way / village boundary can increase awareness and/or reduce speed ; Enclosing a distant view and/or breaking up linearity can reduce speeds ; Creating uncertainty can reduce speeds ; Combinations of measures tend to be more effective than individual ones, but can be visually intrusive and may be costly ; Roadside activity ( e.g. parked vehicles, the presence of pedestrians or a cycle lane ) can reduce speeds At first, some of these principles, especially those regarding perceived risk and uncertainty, may seem counterintuitive. However, it will be shown that many schemes based on these ideas have succeeded in maintaining pedestrian safety. F ive basic elements of design were established a p sychological calming principles: (a) context, such as road type and environmental character; (b) scale, regarding road width and building height; (c) proportion, like the enclosure formed by the juxtaposition of road width and building height; (d) roadside

PAGE 24

24 activity, via pedestrians, cyclists, and parked vehi cles; (e) road surface, including color and texture (Kennedy, 2005). Many of these design elements have been implemented and evaluated in a psychological scheme in Latton, England, a small village bisected by a rural highway. Major treatment components inc luded (a) stone gateways at entry points with village name and speed limit posted; (b) planter build outs to form parking bays on alternate sides of the roadway; (c) removal of the center line marking; (d) enhancements around the main village junction with paved build outs and crossings; (e) a new bus bay; (f) buffed surfacing near the bus stops and main junction, areas considered likely pedestrian crossings; (g) lighting columns lowered to a more human scale (Kennedy, 2005). Studies of the new scheme revea led positive results. For example, two way average speeds within the village center fell from 38 to 31 miles per hour (mph), and 85th percentile speeds decreased by 8 10 mph to 37 38 mph (Kennedy, 2005). Surveys of Latton residents showed that over three q uarters of respondents supported the implemented measures, half felt that it was safer to cross the road than before, and three quarters enjoyed the overall appearance of the scheme (Kennedy 2005 ). The Woonerf Concept Though the distinction of psychologic al traffic calming and its advocacy over physical methods are fairly recent, many of the principles and concepts are not woonerf pioneered the idea of mixing pedestrian and vehi cle movement in order to slow down motorists as early as 1969. Physically, the woonerf consists of integrating sidewalk and roadway into a single surface by removing the curb (Ben Joseph, 1995). Because the

PAGE 25

25 scheme allows and encourages children to play in the streets, traffic on a woonerf is intended to proceed at about 9 to 12 mph (Appleyard, 1981). The first two woonerven were implemented in the Dutch city of Delft. In addition to the iconic zero clearance curb, other psychological aspects bearing multipl e uses were discouraged vehicles from coming too close and also held community functions, marking a specific house or providing a bicycle rest, for instance (Appleyard, 1981 p. 307). Public and administrative reception was overwhelmingly positive, and by 1978, the Delft road network featured 25 woonerven (Appleyard, 1981, p. 309). Beyond the Netherlands, Woonerf policies have been established in Germany (1976), England (1977 ), Sweden (1977), Denmark (1977), France (1979), Japan (1979), Israel (1981), and Switzerland (1982) (Ben Joseph, 1995). Policies are slightly different from country to country based on local traffic climate. For instance, conditions in Japan differ from t hose in Europe in that neighborhood streets may be narrower and mixed traffic flows tend to be heavier (Tolley, 1997, p. 391). Consequently, Japan has instituted a variation of the woonerf called the aim the street as a public living space, the community street aims to give pedestrians crossing priority in zones with vulnerable users or high concentrations of shoppers (Tolley, 1997, p. 392). These streets tend to be popular and well accepted by Japanes e residents. In fact, 90% of those surveyed believed community streets were intended more for pedestrian than auto use, 66% felt the scheme encouraged social interactions with neighbors, and 67% considered the street a safe place for children to play (Ben Joseph, 1995). The first

PAGE 26

26 community street, constructed in Osaka in 1980, utilized low clearance curbs and dedicated only three meters of the total ten meter street width to one way motorized traffic (Tolley, 1997, p. 392). Area wide coverage projects of co mmunity streets, named Shared Space and In the 1980s, Hans Monderman a Dutch traffic engineer, proposed that the woonerf concept be taken one step further. Monderman advocated the removal of road sig ns and traditional uniform traffic control devices, asserting that they are an admission of failure on the part of the road designer (McNichol, 2004). By removing signing, motorists are afforded less authority and more uncertainty regarding street travel. Perceived risk and forced eye contact with pedestrians result in slower and more alert (McNichol, 2004). In the Dutch town of Oosterwolde a standard signal controlled intersection was converted into a shared space, allowing pedestrians to use the area like a public square. Despite a daily traffic flow of 5,000 vehicles, no serious accident occurred in the five years a fter redesign (McNichol, 2004). The removal of control devices has also been explored in the United Kingdom via the removal of center lines. A study of a Wiltshire street found that center line removal yielded 35% le ss accidents (McNichols, 2004). ing. Further, he believes informal signs placed by neighborhood residents draw more attention and regard from the driver than official ones (Appleyard, 1981, p. 297). He references one sign found on a residential Berkeley, California is

PAGE 27

27 297). Moreover, a ccording to some authorities, speed limit signs typically have no effect on segment traffic volume and minimal effect on traffic speed, since motorists generally drive at a speed perceived to be safe and reasonable under environmental conditions (Florida Department of Transportation [FDOT], 1999). Ideally, a speed limit as Monderman contends, should be self enforcing through strategic design State of P ractice of Psychological Traffic Calming in the U nited States Though numerous policies have been successful around the world, psychological traffic calming schemes are scarce in the United States. Of 10 municipalities in the United States that were early a dopters of traffic calming programs, none have fully a ssumed the European model that stresses shared space (Ewing & Brown, 2009). Much of this may be due to the differing character of US cities compared to the European towns that have successfully implemen ted psychological traffic calming. In many of the European examples, city streets had been constructed before the advent of the automobile and had naturally been designed and maintained for lower transportation speeds. Furthermore, policy approaches differ in scale. While guidelines in Germany, Holland, and Denmark support area wide coverage and implementation on all street classifications, plans in the United States typically focus on a single corridor, usually lower than arterial and collector in the net work hierarchy ( Ewing & Brown, 2009 ). American practitioners and researchers also continue to largely ignore non physical traffic calming methods. Ewing and Brown (2009) emphasizes the use of physical measures to slow or diver t traffic. The definition excludes nonengineering measures that may improve street appearance, assuage

PAGE 28

28 (2009) assert o perception fool many drivers. We know that from before and However, the authors do not reference any before or after studies to prove this claim Davis Festival Street in Portland, Oregon is one of the few examples of a shared space scheme on a public, urban road in the United States. The design, located in line marking and grade separation bet ween street and sidewalk, installed a unique texture of concrete squares, and placed large, palm tree planters flanking both entry points (Baker, 2006). As with many of the woonerven and European shared spaces, short stone posts were the only physical barr ier implemented to segregate pedestrian and automobile. By effect, priority over the space was granted to pedestrians. Despite few public attempts, psychological calming activity is not completely inert in America. Ben Joseph (1995) notes that private deve lopments, where local governments possess no legal responsibility for the street system, are prime venues for domestic experimentation with new traffic calming measures. Some developers and community planners have taken heed. In 2005, the United States bas ed Congress for the New Urbanism lauded the shared space concept as the most important recent innovation in European street design (Baker, 2006). New urbanist communities, which by principle encourage livable and pedestrian oriented street networks, are th erefore a natural stage for testing. However, few available studies document the effectiveness of measures within these communities.

PAGE 29

29 Specifically, measures have been implemented into or achieved by multiple semi private n ew u rbanist and neo traditional dev elopments in America independent of guidance by municipal policies. One example is Baldwin Park, a 1,100 acre master planned community on the site of the former Naval Training Center in Orlando, Florida. Baldwin Park has a dense network of streets that pr ovides a great amount of connectivity both within the development and to the surrounding City of Orlando street network. To lessen the impact of speeders and cut through traffic, residential streets in Baldwin Park have a width between 20 and 22 feet wide (Ewing & Brown, 2009 p. 209 ) At this width, two way traffic has to yield if passing even a single parked car (Ewing & Brown, 2009, p. 209). Seaside, Florida, one of the original new urbanist developments, has a calming scheme that mimics the shared space The streets in Seaside have no raised sidewalks or curbs, so pedestrians and cars share the same paved surface (Southworth & Ben Joseph, 1997 p. 137 ). The narrowness of the paved surface, small building setbacks, and short block length further control t he automobile speed (Southworth & Ben Joseph, 1997 p. 137 ). streets would not meet local street regulations, the developer classified them as parking areas, providing more flexible regulations for building setba cks, lane width, and curb radii (Southworth & Ben Joseph, 1997, p. 138). Sometimes, o lder urban neighborhoods that predate the rise of auto oriented street standards exhibit psychological traffic calming features as well. Elmwood, a neighborhood of Berkele y, California, is an example of a pedestrian friendly neighborhood with no formal design elements. Unlike Baldwin Park and Seaside, Elmwood grew gradually with the individual construction of homes by various builders

PAGE 30

30 on a lot by lot basis (Ewing & Brown, 2 009, p. 103). Because of this piecemeal growth, architectural styles and building setbacks vary greatly. The streets of the neighborhood are characterized by sidewalks with planting strips, relatively narrow travel ways, and a tree canopy that has had deca des to mature (Ewing & Brown, 2009, p. 103).

PAGE 31

31 Figure 2 1. Pedestrian fatality probability if hit by motor v eh icle, by speed of motor v ehicle ( Data s ource: United Kingdom Department of Transportation, 1987) Figure 2 2. Minimum s topping d istance b y s peed of m otor v ehicle ( Data s ource: NHTSA, 2006) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 20 30 40 Pedestrian's Chance of Death if Hit by Motor Vehicle (%) Motor Vehicle Speed (mph) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 20 30 40 50 60 70 Total Stopping Distance (ft) Motor Vehicle Speed (mph) Stopping Distance Thinking Distance

PAGE 32

32 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY Research Question This study examined the success of psychological traffic calming in two neighborhoods in Alachua County, Florida The first neighborhood, Haile Village Center, i s a privately developed and owned n ew u rbanist community designed to accommodate pedestrian activity. The second neighborhood is a port College Park neighborhood an older community in close proximity to the University of Florida While t hese two neighborhoods both have street grids with short blocks, interconnected streets, and numerous psychological calming elements, they are fundamentally different in many ways, including roadway design, land use, and population demographics. Study Ar eas Introduction to Haile Village Center Haile Village Center, seen in Figure 3 1 is a new urbanist community located west of Interstate 75 in Alachua County, Florida, approximately six miles from the central campus of the University of Florida. The Villa ge Center is fully contained within Haile Plantation, a 1,073 acre planned unit development (PUD) begun in 1979 (Osemene, 1984, p. 40). The traditional neighborhood component of Haile Plantation originated in 1992 when an amendment to the PUD zoning master plan allowed the consolidation of 280,000 sq. ft. of proposed commercial space into a separate town center (Ben Bassat, 1996, p. 51). Haile Village Center architect Robert Kramer designed the community around main objectives not dissimilar from those of t raffic calming. Kramer primarily

PAGE 33

33 enjoy outdoor recreation and leisure time activities within a short walking di stance from Introduction to the Colle ge Park Neighborhood The study area within the College Park Neighborhood, seen in Figure 3 2, is located about one mile northwest of downtown Gainesville and a quarter mile north of the University of Florida. Platted as the Colson and Blanding Subdivision, t he street grid has somewhat shorter block length than surrounding College Park development. Though mostly residential, some commercial uses line NW 13 th Street on the east side of the study area. Approach Conceptual Framework In general, street safety an d livability can be seen as the result of two independent variables: street speed (i.e. technical and statistical safety) and public perception (i.e. how safe observers feel). Volume of motor vehicle traffic is also a major factor in determining street saf ety, but under the assumption that volumes would be relatively low in both neighborhoods, it was not a focus of the study structure A casual arrow diagram of the conceptual model can be seen in Figure 3 3 To distinguish the fundamental differences betwee n psychological and physical traffic calming, both have been included in the model. Depending on the specific situation, control over the variables surrounding the psychological traffic calming intervention can change. For example, during the design phase of a new community and its street network, variables like street scale, street proportion, and neighborhood context can all be modified as desired to fit a calming

PAGE 34

34 scheme. After construction, however, the flexibility of these variables can be significantly constrained, especially by cost. Methodology Design and Assessment Process This was a cross sectional, prospective, and non experimental study; observations and responses were acquired for the current condition s of Haile Village Center and College Park T he methodology was t hree pronged, including a qualitative a quantitative, and a both qualitative and quantitative research task. The qualitative task involve d the creation of a street safety/l iva bility perception questionnaire and administering the questi onnaire to the residents of both neighborhoods Too often, the element of public perception is overlooked in the assessment of pedestrian safety. Hine (1996) criticizes the transportation engineering helming focused on, the use of quantitative methodologies reflecting a greater concern with technological advances, i.e. the performance of traffic control and management devices rather than a concern with Sisi opiku and Aki n (2003) agree on the importance of the most appropriate group to identify treatments that create a safe and/or desirable environment for them and options that incre ase their likelihood to properly use By this view of pedestrian safety assessment, qualitative user perception data became a major part of my study. Generally, the questionnaire sought to understand perceptions o f safety, street travel experiences, study area demographics, and general concerns from neighborhood residents, the people that use the study area street networks on a daily basis. Data from this task w ere used to determine if driver behavior matched what would be expected for a

PAGE 35

35 psychological calming scheme, if residents felt safe from traffic on their streets, and if there were any major diffe rences between the study areas. The qualitative quantitative task involved a field survey of the street design and urban form elements that, according to psychological calming theory, can impact safety. Building morphology/massing, street cross sectional measurements, street width to building height ratios, neighborhood context, and tree canopy coverage were the key me asures. This task was performed to confirm the presence of psychological traffic calming and to identify which segments would be observed in the final task. For the quantitative task, traffic and pedestrian data were obtained through non participant observ ations. This task measure d the speed, volume, and street side activity variables w hich directly relate the safety lev el of a traffic calming scheme. Questionnaire Two questionnaires were used in this research, one for each of the two Alachua County neighbo rhood study areas. The full texts of these questionnaires can be seen in Appendix A. The questionnaires asked the same basic questions in the same order and format, but the descriptions and language in each were tailored to the specific study area. The que stionnaire was divided by topic into five sections: ( 1 ) experiences as a driver, ( 2 ) experiences as a pedestrian, ( 3 ) safety perceptions ( 4 ) additional feedback and (5 ) general information. The 24 questions are a mix of multiple choice and free response. This format is similar to pedestrian safety questionnaires previously administered by Sisiopiku and Akin (2003) and by Qionghui (2002). Additionally, an i nformed consent document approved by the University of Florida Internal Review Board was provided as the cover letter of the questionnaire.

PAGE 36

36 Two sets of potential participants were selected one from each of the two study areas. The study area boundaries used for selection can be seen in the Figure 3 4 and 3 5 Since both study areas were relatively small the questionnaire was administered comprehensively to all households rather than extracting a random sample. According to geographic information system (GIS) data, t he Haile Village Center study area contains 372 property parcels of various uses Of thes e 372 properties, 161 are condominiums, 96 are single family housing, and 23 are mixed use properties (may have a residential component). Publically available data from the Alachua County Property Appraiser and a supplemental field survey identified 239 va lid residential addresses out of the original 280 residential parcels. One questionnaire package ( a questionnaire, an informed consent cover letter a prepaid return envelope and, potentially, a letter of encouragement ) was sent to each of the 239 valid r esidential addresses. GIS data showed that the College Park study area contains 54 property parcels of various uses Of these 54 properties, 18 are multi family housing of less than 10 units, and 26 are single family housing. Again, publically available da ta from the Alachua County Property Appraiser and a supplemental field survey identified the valid residential addresses within these 44 properties, a total of 83 addresses. The questionnaire package was sent to each of the 83 valid addresses. Numbers from both participant selection processes are summarized in Table 3 1. Each potential participant was mailed a questionnaire, an informed consent form cover letter and return envelope with prepaid postage. The informed consent cover letter invite d the potenti al participant to fill out the questionnaire ; return the completed

PAGE 37

37 questionnaire using the prepaid envelope ; keep the informed consent cover letter for his or her records; and contact me by email or phone for questions about my research or inquiries about my results. Participation was limited to people at least 18 years of age. The questionnaire was administered only once to each potential participant and r esponses were reviewed and recorded as they are returned. Field survey In each neighborhood, the field survey was performed to make general observations about neighborhood characteristics, confirm the presence of psychological traffic calming and to identify street segments appropriate for the quantitative safety analysis. The survey was augmented by GIS data from the questionnaire portion of the methodology. Two street segments were chosen in each of the two study areas to allow for intra neighborhood safety comparisons. In Haile Village Center, two village street segments of comparable design and charact er, seen in Figure 3 4 were evaluated side by side. The first street segment, SW 91 Terrace (between SW 48 Place and SW 49 Place), was perceived by the Haile Village Center Home Owners Association as possessing high vehicle speeds and, by consequence, uns afe pedestrian conditions. The second street segment, SW 91 Drive (between SW 48 Place and SW 49 Place), is parallel and directly adjacent to SW 91 Terrace in the village grid pattern. Since the entire lengths of both streets extend between village access points to the north and south, the segments were judged to support similar movement roles. In the College Park study area, NW 15 th Street and NW 13 th Terrace, seen in Figure 3 4 were evaluated. These two segments are parallel to one another between

PAGE 38

38 NW 5 th Avenue and NW 7 th Avenue. Both are subject to cut through and overflow traffic from nearby arterials such as University Avenue, NW 13 th Street, and NW 8 th Avenue. Psychological traffic calming design elements were detected through first hand observations a nd recordings. Inventory activities focused on the factors of context, scale, proportion, roadside activity, and road surface previously outlined by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) and the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) (Kenn edy, 2005). Street horizontal dimensions were taken using measuring tape. Conversely, vertical measurements were estimated with consideration to typical design values and perceived reference points. Approximate segment lengths were gathered via geographica l information system. Spot speed studies To g et quantitative measurements of the effects of psychological traffic calming in the two neighborhoods, speed and volume data were recorded from first hand observations These studies were carried out, and later processed, in accordance to directions by Roess, Prassas, and McShane (2004) on how to record and analyze spot speeds, the speeds of vehicles passing a point on a roadway. Specifically, speeds must be measured under conditions of free vehicle flow to make sure any observed speeds are not impeded by the factors resulting from the build up of traffic (Roess, Prassas, & McShane, 2004, p. 204). Furthermore, the study conductor must be concealed from the view of motorists while recording speeds. If a motorist be comes aware of the speed recording activity, he or she may slow down under the assumption of a law enforcement operation, and the measurements will no longer reflect the true speed conditions of the site (Roess, Prassas, & McShane, 2004, p. 207).

PAGE 39

39 Vehicle s peeds were measured by a hand held radar meter. The device, a Bushnell Velocity Speed Gun, is able to measure automobile speeds between six and 200 mph from as far as 1500 ft. To ensure accurate readings, the path of the emitted radar from the device must coincide with the path of the automobile as closely as possible. Error increases as the angle of the reading diverges from the vehicle path. By attempting to approximate a straight on path of measurement, readings have an accuracy of 1 mph As mentioned, four road segments selected for speed measurement : SW 91 Terrace and SW 91 Street in Haile Villages Center, and NW 15 th Street and NW 13 th Terrace in College Park Measurements of these road segments were taken over the course of two weeks in late August a nd early September during the start of the University of Florida Fall 2011 semester Recording during this time period ensured that traffic would along the segments would reflect conditions at peak travel demand. The Traffic Calming Program of the City of Gainesville Public Works Department maintains the same practice of only measuring traffic speeds while university classes are in session (P. Mann, personal communication, March 25, 2010). Each segment received two observation periods, one for the morning travel demand peak between 8:30 AM and 10:30 AM and one for the afternoon peak between 4:30 PM and 6:30 PM. SW 91 Drive was observed on Wednesday, August 31, 2011 and SW 91 Terrace was observed on Friday, September 2, 2011 For both locations, I recorded data from a n unmarked car parked in an on street parking stalls so that drivers would not notice the speed readings being taken. Aside from vehicles entering or leaving one of the segment parking stalls, all motorized vehicles traveling northbound or south bound along

PAGE 40

40 either segment were recorded. The recording strategy for the Haile Village Center segments is summarized in Figure 3 6. NW 15 th Street was observed on Tuesday, August 23, 2011, and NW 13 th Terrace was observed on Friday, September 2, 2011. For both locations, I recorded data from an u n marked car parked about five feet parallel to the road right of way. Because both segments had additional intersections between the northern terminus at NW 7 th Avenue and southern terminus at NW 5 th Avenue only ve hicles that traveled at least half the segment were recorded. Vehicles traveling less than half the segment did not have enough distance to gather significant speed and were judged to not be representative of typical driving behavior. My recording strategy for the Colle ge Park study area segments is summarized in Figure 3 7. As traffic speeds were being recorded pedestrian and bicycle counts were also taken. For Haile Village Center segment parking occupancy was monitored on each curb, and an average for t he two hour period was recorded.

PAGE 41

41 Figure 3 1. Haile Village Center l ocation

PAGE 42

42 Figure 3 2. College Park s tudy a rea l ocatio n

PAGE 43

43 Figure 3 3 Casual a rrow d iagram of c onceptual m odel

PAGE 44

44 Figure 3 4 Haile Village Center study segments. Selected study segments on SW 91 Terrace and SW 91 Drive are seen as orange arrows. Village access points at the northern and southern termini of the streets are shown in red.

PAGE 45

45 Figure 3 5. College Park study segments. Selected study segments on NW 15 th Street and NW 1 3 th Terrace are seen as orange arrows. Commonly used access points to and from NW 13 th Street, NW 8 th Avenue, and W University Avenue are shown in red.

PAGE 46

46 Figure 3 6. Haile Village Center speed study strategy. Selected study segments on SW 91 Terrace and SW 91 Drive are shown within the yellow boxes. The locations from which I recorded speeds are shown as gold stars. The blue dotted lines show the northbound movements of vehicles that were recorded, while the red dotted lines show the southbound movements of vehicles that were recorded.

PAGE 47

47 Figure 3 7. College Park speed study strategy. Selected study segments on NW 15 th Street and NW 13 th Terrace are shown within the yellow boxes The locations from which I recorded speeds are shown as gold stars. The blue dotted lines show the northbound movements of vehicles that were recorded, while the red dotted lines show the southbound movements of vehicles that were recorded.

PAGE 48

48 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Results f rom the questionnaire, field study, and spot speed study port ions of the methodology are compiled and detailed in this chapter. First, responses to various sections of the questionnaire are summarize d. Next, field study results characterize the design and traffic environment of the two study neighborhoods and the st udy street segments. Finally, findings from the spot speed studies of the street segments are described. Questionnaire Results Of the 239 questionnaires sent to Haile Village Center, 50 were returned for being undeliverable or addressed to a vacant residen ce. From the 187 delivered successfully, 80 were ultimately returned, a 42.3 % response rate. Of the 83 questionnaires sent to College Park, 13 were returned for being undeliverable or addressed to a vacant residence. The response rate was far lower for thi s neighborhood. From the 70 delivered successfully, 20 were ultimately returned, a 28.6 % response. These results are summarized in Table 4 1. Not all questions were answered by all respondents, so for some questions, the number of responses is lower than t he total number of respondents. D emo g r aphics Over 60 % of Haile Village Center respondents were female, whereas College Park response was evenly divided between male and female. The age of respondents differed greatly between the two neighborhoods. Slightly less than half in Haile Village Center were 45 years old or above, while 85 % were 25 years old or below in College

PAGE 49

49 of Florida and its reputation as a student oriented n eighborhood Education also varied in terms of bachelor and graduate degrees. Haile Village Center had 42 % of respondents with graduate degrees and 30 % with bachelor degrees, compared to College Park with 30 % graduate degrees and 20 % bachelor degrees. Howe ver, the was similar: 88 % in Haile Village Center and 85% in College park. Demographics are summarized in Figure s 4 1, 4 2, and 4 3 Travel and Modal Tendencies Questionnai re results show ed that 100% of Haile Village Center respondents had access to a car. For College Park, only one of the 20 total respondents did not have access to a car. Despite similar car ownership, regular usage was only 26.3 % in College Park compared t o 85 % in Haile Village Center. At the same time, 55 % of College Park respondents regularly walk to destinations, compared to 38.8 % in Haile Village Center, a community designed to support walking and pedestrianism. It is likely that a large number of Colle ge Park residents also regularly bike to destinations, but this was not inquired in the questionnaire. For both study areas, no respondent claimed to never walk to destinations. Results are summarized in Figures 4 4 and 4 5. Travel Behavior and Collision R eports In Haile Village Center, 82.5 % report ed that their driving behavior changes as they % claim ed to slow down upon entry. This discrepancy of percentages suggests that some respondents did not consider slowing down to be a change in driving behavior. Also, 73.6 % claim ed to communicate in a non verbal manner with other road users, much in the spirit of the woonerf and shared space.

PAGE 50

50 For the College Park study area, only 50 % allege d to change d riving behavior upon entry. The same discrepancy of percentages occurred with the two follow up questions: 77.8 % claim ed to slow down and 55.6 % claim ed to communicate non verbally. Respondent travel behavior is summarized in Figure s 4 6 and 4 7 No respond ent in either Haile Village Center or College park claimed to have been involved in an automobile pedestrian collision as a driver or pedestrian. However, 16.3 % in Haile and 10.5% in College Park report ed a close call with a pedestrian as a driver. Meanwhi le, 10% in Haile and 30 % in College Park report ed a close call with a car as a pedestrian. Collision reports are summarized in Figure s 4 8 and 4 9 Safety Perceptions For the series of questions regarding safety perceptions, respondents were as ked to indic ate whether they strongly agreed; agreed; neither agreed nor disagreed; disagreed; or strongly disagreed with certain statements. Results from this part of the questionnaire indicated the following: Ninety percent of Haile Village Center respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that they feel safe crossing neighborhood streets at all intersections 88.8 % felt the same way about crossing anywhere along the street. In College Park, the percentages were 80 and 70, respectively In Haile Village Center, at least 50 % of respondents either disagree d or strongly disagree d to the each of the statements claiming that drivers, pedestrian, and bicyclists do not pay enough attention. In College Park, 15 % disagree d for drivers, 35 % for pedestrians, and 30 % for bicycl ists. About a third of respondents agree d or strongly agree d that drivers go too fast in Haile Village Center. The same faction represented 55 % of respondents in College Park. Few people in either neighborhood felt that the streets are safe enough to play on during daytime hours. Only a quarter either agree d or strongly agreed in College Park, while the same number for Haile Village Center was 21.5 %

PAGE 51

51 Both neighborhoods felt their streets are genera lly safe for pedestrians 92.4% in Haile Village Center an d 65% in College Park either agree d or strongly agree d with the statement. Ninety five percent in Haile Village Center either agree d or strong ly agree d that streets need sidewalks to create a safe pedestrian environment, and 68.4 % felt the same way about th e statement that pedestrian safety is a matter of infrastructure design. Interestingly, though respondents in College Park generally felt that their curbless, shared stree ts are safe for pedestrians, 90% either agree d or strongly agree d that sidewalks are important to create a safe street environment for pedestrians. The above results and additional safety perception responses can be seen in Figure s 4 10 and 4 11. After the section on safety perceptions, the questionnaire asked the respondents to provide a If a range of speeds was given instead of a single number, the median speed in the range was recorded as the response. Results from this question were then avera ged. For Haile Village Center, answers varied from a high of 35 mph to a low of 5 mph. The average was 17.8 mph with a standard deviation of 5.6 mph. For College Park, answers varied from a high of 30 mph to a low of 15 mph. The average was 21.8 mph with a standard deviation of 4.78 mph. Field Survey Results Haile Village Center Before specific traffic calming elements were inventoried, some general characteristics of Haile Village Center were examined. According to GIS data, the study area is 40.63 acres. Dividing the total number of residenti al units from the questionnaire (239) by this acreage yielded a neighborhood density of 5.88 units per acre.

PAGE 52

52 Next, transportation patterns were observed. On a road network map, a cordon was placed around the boundary of the village. On the perimeter of th is cordon, there are only four access points, three connecting to SW 91 Street and one to SW 46 Boulevard. Both of these roads could be classified as connectors since they support Haile Plantation resident traffic to and from major and minor arterials. Fro m this arrangement, it can be assumed that the Haile Village Center street network carries no external to external automobile trips. A substantial portion of village trips, however, are completely internal. A 1996 study determined that, of the 10.5 trips p er day generated by single family households, 23 % were internally captured (Kramer, 2001). Consequentially, the remainder of the trips was classified as internal to external and vice versa. These observations are summarized in Figure 4 12 Many of the ps ychological traffic calming design aspects of Haile Village Center were found to originate from property ownership circumstances. The street network of the village is owned privately by the developer, giving the village home owners association powers over maintenance, security, and physical changes (Ben Bassat, 1996, p. 88). Because of this governance, traffic controls and regulations are greatly different than those in neighborhoods of comparable density. For example, there is no posted or enforced speed l imit. Additionally, parking has no formal regulation, though parallel parking bays are located on most street segments. Coverage of signage, striping, and other control devices is minimal throughout the village. The only discernable instances are stop sign s at intersections, no turn signs to indicate one way streets, and parallel parking gage length markings. In essence, Haile Village Center is the archetypal experimental American venue described by Ben Joseph (1995).

PAGE 53

53 The results of the segment design eleme nt field survey can be seen in Figure s 4 13 and 4 1 4 in addition to Figure B 1 in A ppendix B The SW 91 Terrace segment is approximately 330 ft in length, and intersections at each end are controlled by stop signs. Abutting property consist of one vacan t lot and five buildings, all mixed use with offices at street level and residences above. When traveling down the street by automobile in either direction, visual linearity is experienced due to long building frontages. From the southbound approach, the d building facades on the subsequent, gently curving segment. The SW 91 Drive segment is approximately 375 ft in length, and only the southern intersection has stop sign control. Two alleyway access points are midblo ck on the eastern curb. Property lining the segment consists of one 16 single family homes and one garage structure (without direct street access). Due to the numerous small building frontages, visual linearity when traveling by automobile is mostly disper sed. The southbound view is fully enclosed by a 90 degree bend and three homes placed perpendicular to the study segment. Cross section views of both segments reveal nearly identical street geometry. Street widths are 21 ft, abutted on each side by 8 ft pa rking bays. Building setbacks are 11 to 12 ft, with a 5.5 to 6 ft landscape planter buffering pedestrian sidewalks. Properties fronting both segments have similar building heights, creating comparable proportions with regard to street enclosure. One notice able difference exists with the trees lining either segment. While landscape buffer trees on SW 91 Terrace are approximately 25 to 30 ft tall, those lining SW 91 Drive are older and taller, rising

PAGE 54

54 approximately 40 to 45 ft and creating a much more substant ial canopy over the travelway. College Park Study Area The College Park study area is 13.04 acres according to GIS data. Dividing the total number of residential units from the questionnaire (83) by this acreage yielded a neighborhood density of 6.36 units per acre. Placing a cordon around the boundary of the College Park study area reveals nine access points on the perimeter. Two of these points connect to NW 13 th Street, a major north south arterial. One connects to NW 6 th Avenue, a residential local stre et. The remaining six connect to NW 7 th Avenue and NW 5 th Avenue, local streets that carry some east west through traffic. NW 15 th Street, one of the study segments, runs straight through the neighborhood and, continuing north to NW 8 th Avenue, a minor eas t west arterial, and south to W University Avenue, a major east west arterial. This street pattern suggests a fair amount of external to external trips, or cut through traffic, in the College Park study area. NW 15 th Street likely bears the most external t o external trips, but the other neighborhood streets no doubt experience cut through traffic as well. Internal to external trips and external to internal trips are generated by neighborhood residents, their visitors, and patrons of the businesses bordering NW 13 th Street within the neighborhood. Internal to internal trips may occur when neighborhood residents patronize those same businesses. These observations are summarized in Figure 4 1 5 While the College Park study area is gridded like the surrounding network of streets, the layout and design of streets is different. Blocks in the study area is about two thirds the length of a typical Gainesville block. With the exception of NW 15 th Street where it meets NW 5 th Avenue and NW 7 th Avenue, the street pave ment is not striped or

PAGE 55

55 marked. Additionally the streets have no curb or gutter and are narrower than surrounding streets. Without a curb soil, plants, and other debris encroach on the street right of way. As much as two feet of travelway pavement on either side may be covered at any given location along the roadway. Stop signs are the only traffic control in the neighborhood, placed on the east west streets where they intersect the north south streets. There is no posted speed limit, but since the roads are publicly owned and residential in nature, a speed limit of 30 mph applies. Street parking is not allowed, but sometimes vehicles infringe on the right of way when parked on adjacent properties. The results of the segment design element field survey can b e seen in Figure s 4 1 6 and 4 1 7 in addition to Figure B 2 in Appendix B. The NW 15 th Street segment is approximately 600 f t in length. The intersection with NW 7 th Avenue at the north end of the segment is a traffic circle and is controlled by a yield s ign. The intersection with NW 5 th Avenue at the south end of the segment is a four way stop The segment has the right of way with all other east west cross streets. Abutting property consists of six one story single family homes, three one story multi fam ily complexes, and one two story boarding house. The view of the driver is linear and mostly unobstructed traveling in both directions, though the traffic circle likely becomes a visual focal point for approaching northbound drivers. There are no sidewalks on the segment between NW 5 th Avenue and NW 7 th Avenue, so the surface is shared by motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, though some pedestrians chose to walk on the frontages of adjacent properties. The NW 13 th Terrace segment is approximately 620 ft in length. The intersections with NW 5 th Avenue and NW 7 th are controlled by stop signs, but the segment has the

PAGE 56

56 right of way with all other east west cross streets. Abutting property consist s of four one story single family homes, three one story duplexes a pair of adjoined two story townhouses, a two story auxiliary apartment, a one story quadplex, and a vacant lot used for private permit parking. The view of the driver is fairly linear at the midpoint of the segment b ut becomes fully enclosed as northbo und and southbound drivers approach the termini at NW 7 th Avenue and NW 5 th Avenue, respectively As with NW 15 th Terrace, t here are no sidewalks on the segment between NW 5 th Avenue and NW 7 th Avenue, so the surface is shared by motorists, bicyclists, and pedestrians, though some pedestrians chose to walk on the frontages of adjacent properties. Cross section views of both segments reveal similar but slightly different street geometry. The roadway is 20 ft wide along NW 15 th Street, and building setbacks a re between 25 and 45 ft. The roadway only 16 ft wide along NW 13 h Terrace, and building setbacks are between 20 and 35 ft. Building heights on both segments are 18 to 20 ft for one story buildings and around 30 ft for two story buildings. On both segments, the proportions of building height to street width, c ombined with the large setbacks, create very little enclosure. Trees along the street segments are not formal streetscape elements like those in Haile Village Center, and their placement is organic. Th ey form a high canopy approximately 80 to 120 ft above the street. The canopy is almost fully enclosed all along NW 13 th Terrace. The trees are more spread out in the building setbacks on NW 15 th Street, so there is a large gap in the canopy coverage for t he middle third of the segment. Since the height of the limbs is fairly high on both segments, the College Park trees do not really create a tunnel effect to the same degree as the street trees in Haile Village Center.

PAGE 57

57 Spot Speed Study Results Combining AM and PM record s the spot speed tests yielded 149 entries on SW 91 Terrace, 59 entries on SW 91 Drive 250 entries on NW 15 th Street, and 87 entries on NW 13 th Terrace For each of the AM, PM, and combined data sets t he mean speed median speed, and standa rd deviation were determined for each segment. Next, the speed records were processed to determine the 85 th percentile and 15 th p ercentile speeds. Roess, Prassas, and McShane recommend identifying these two values since they can be used to describe the hig h and low speeds of most reasonable drivers (2004, p. 213). The upper and lower 15% of the speed distribution are generally thought of as too extreme to accurately describe existing conditions (Roess, Prassas, & McShane, 2004, pp. 213 214). Additionally, m any roads are designed by the desired 85 th percentile speed, so it is one of the most important measures in understanding driving behavior. To find the 85 th and 15 th percentile speeds, records were grouped into 2 mph ranges. A frequency percentage for each group was calculated against the overall number of records. Then, a cumulative frequency percentage was computed for the speed groups, working in ascending order from the lowest to highest group value. From these calculations, frequency and cumulative fre quency distribution scatter graphs were generated for each segment. The graphs with fitted smooth curves can be seen in Figure C 1 through Figure C 12 in A ppendix C and the frequency distribution tables they were derived from can be seen in Table C 1 thro ugh Table C 12 Values for 15 th percentile, 85 th percentile, and mean (50 th percentile) speed were interpolated from the cumulative frequency graphs A summary of all major speed test statistics, pedestrian and bicycle counts, and parking observation resul ts is shown in Table 4 2

PAGE 58

58 Figure 4 1. Questionnaire: gender of respondents The number of respondents to give each answer appears on the columns. Figure 4 2. Questionnaire: age of respondents. The number of respondents to give each answer appears o n the columns 30 10 48 10 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Haile Village Center College Park Percentage of Respondents Female Male 8 12 19 5 13 3 12 26 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Haile Village Center College Park Percentage of Respondents 55+ 45 54 35 44 25 34 18 24

PAGE 59

59 Figure 4 3 Questionnaire: education of respondents. The respondent was asked to select the highest level of education he or she had completed. The number of respondents to give each answer appears on the columns 1 2 6 3 7 5 23 4 6 2 32 6 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Haile Village Center College Park Percentage of Respondents Graduate degree Some graduate work Bachelor degree Associate's degree Some College Completed high school Some high school

PAGE 60

60 Figure 4 4. Questio nnaire: Haile Village Center modal tendencies. Figure 4 5. Questionnaire: College Park modal tendencies. 85.0% 38.8% 11.3% 53.8% 1.3% 7.5% 2.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% How often do you drive to reach destinations? How often do you walk to reach destinations? Percentage of Respondents Never Rarely Occasionally Regularly 26.3% 55.0% 42.1% 40.0% 31.6% 5.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% How often do you drive to reach destinations? How often do you walk to reach destinations? Percentage of Respondents Never Rarely Occasionally Regularly

PAGE 61

61 Figure 4 6. Questionnaire: Haile Village Center driver behavior. Figure 4 7. Questionnaire: College Park driver behavior. 82.5% 96.3% 76.3% 12.5% 3.8% 15.0% 5.0% 8.8% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Does your driving behavior change when you enter Haile Village Center from a main road? down? communicate with pedestrians, bicyclists, or other drivers in a non verbal manner? Percentage of Respondents No Sometimes Yes 50.0% 77.8% 55.6% 27.8% 11.1% 33.3% 22.2% 11.1% 11.1% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Does your driving behavior change when you enter your neighborhood from a main road? down? communicate with pedestrians, bicyclists, or other drivers in a non verbal manner? Percentage of Respondents No Sometimes Yes

PAGE 62

62 Figure 4 8. Q uestionnaire: Haile Village Center collisions. Figure 4 9. Questionnaire: Haile Village Center collisions. 16.3% 10.0% 83.8% 90.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% As a driver, have you ever had a collision or close call with a pedestrian in your neighborhood? As a pedestrian, have you ever had a collision or close call with a car in your neighborhood? Percentage of Respondents No Yes, close call Yes, collision 10.5% 30.0% 89.5% 70.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% As a driver, have you ever had a collision or close call with a pedestrian in your neighborhood? As a pedestrian, have you ever had a collision or close call with a car in your neighborhood? Percentage of Respondents No Yes, close call Yes, collision

PAGE 63

63 Figure 4 10 Questionnaire: Haile Village Center safety perceptions. 1.3% 2.5% 10.0% 7.5% 7.5% 6.3% 1.3% 17.7% 1.3% 7.5% 7.5% 50.0% 50.0% 41.3% 46.3% 6.3% 32.9% 13.9% 1.3% 1.3% 1.3% 17.5% 16.3% 30.0% 16.3% 24.1% 5.0% 27.8% 7.6% 5.1% 37.5% 40.0% 16.3% 22.5% 15.0% 20.0% 48.1% 35.0% 17.7% 58.2% 63.3% 52.5% 48.8% 6.3% 3.8% 6.3% 11.3% 20.3% 60.0% 3.8% 20.3% 29.1% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% As a pedestrian, I feel safe crossing the street at all intersections in Haile Village Center. As a pedestrian, I feel safe crossing anywhere along the street in Haile Village Center. Drivers in Haile Village Center do not pay enough attention. Pedestrians in Haile Village Center do not pay enough attention. Bicyclists in Haile Village Center do not pay enough attention. Drivers go too fast in Haile Village Center. Pedestrian safety is a matter of transportation infrastructure design. It is important for streets to have sidewalks to create a safe environment for pedestrians. The streets of Haile Village Center are safe enough for children to play on during daytime hours. There is sufficient traffic control in Haile Village Center. Overall, the streets in Haile Village Center are safe for pedestrians. Percentage of Respondents Strongly disagree Dsiagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

PAGE 64

64 Figure 4 11 Questionnaire: College Park safety perceptions 10.0% 5.0% 20.0% 10.0% 15.0% 35.0% 30.0% 15.0% 5.0% 10.0% 45.0% 15.0% 15.0% 20.0% 40.0% 20.0% 20.0% 30.0% 25.0% 20.0% 10.0% 20.0% 50.0% 40.0% 35.0% 45.0% 35.0% 45.0% 50.0% 35.0% 15.0% 60.0% 45.0% 30.0% 30.0% 10.0% 15.0% 10.0% 20.0% 55.0% 10.0% 10.0% 20.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% As a pedestrian, I feel safe crossing the street at all intersections in my neighborhood As a pedestrian, I feel safe crossing anywhere along the street in my neighborhood. Drivers in my neighborhood do not pay enough attention. Pedestrians in my neighborhood do not pay enough attention. Bicyclists in my neighborhood do not pay enough attention. Drivers go too fast in my neighborhood. Pedestrian safety is a matter of transportation infrastructure design. It is important for streets to have sidewalks to create a safe environment for pedestrians. The streets of my neighborhood are safe enough for children to play on during daytime hours. There is sufficient traffic control in my neighborhood. Overall, the streets in my neighborhood are safe for pedestrians. Percentage of Respondents Strongly disagree Dsiagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Strongly agree

PAGE 65

65 Fig ure 4 12 Haile Village Center t ravel p atterns. The network cordon is seen in yellow.

PAGE 66

66 A B Figure 4 13. Plan v iew of Haile Village Center street alignments and building footprints. Red dots indicate stop sign traffic control installations. A) SW 91 Terrace. B) SW 91 Drive.

PAGE 67

67 A B Figure 4 14. Section profile of Haile Village Center street geometry. A) SW 91 Ter race B) SW 91 Drive

PAGE 68

68 Figure 4 1 5 College Park Study Area t ravel p atterns. The network cordon is seen in

PAGE 69

69 A B Figure 4 1 6 Plan view of College Park street alignments and building footprints. Red dots indicate stop sign traffic control installations Red rimmed triangles with white background show yield sign locations Where the street outlines are lig ht grey in color, the roadway has no curb and sits at grade with surrounding properties. A) NW 15 th Street B) NW 13 th Terrace

PAGE 70

70 A B Figure 4 17 Section p rofile of College Park street geometry. A) NW 15 th Street B) NW 13 th Terrace

PAGE 71

71 Table 4 1. Questionnaire send out and response rates Measure Haile Village Center College Park Original send out (gross send out) 239 83 Vacant or undeliverable 50 13 Successfully delivered (net send out) 187 70 Completed and returned 80 20 Gross response rate 3 3.5% 24.1% Net response rate 42.3% 28.6%

PAGE 72

72 Table 4 2 Summary of spot speed study results Measure Haile Village Center College Park Study Area SW 91 Terrace SW 91 Drive NW 15 th Street NW 13 th Terrace AM PM TOT AM PM TOT AM PM TOT AM PM TOT Vehicle Count 61 88 149 26 33 59 71 179 250 26 61 87 Parking Occupancy 60% 40% 50% 30% 40% 35% Pedestrian Count 18 15 33 14 12 26 29 49 78 14 9 23 Bicycle Count 9 3 12 2 3 5 37 56 93 6 14 20 Mean Speed (mph) 17.5 18.7 18.2 17.1 17.4 17.3 24.9 24.3 24.5 18.0 18.4 18.3 Median Speed (mph) 18.0 18.0 18.0 16.0 17.0 17.0 25.0 24.0 24.0 17.0 18.0 18.0 Standard Deviation (mph) 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.3 3.9 4.0 4.0 3.8 3.5 3.6 15th Percentile Speed (mph) 13.0 15.2 14.4 13.0 13. 6 13.3 20.8 19.8 20.3 14.0 14.4 14.0 85th Percentile Speed (mph) 20.0 20.8 20.4 20.4 20.0 20.2 28.2 28.4 28.3 22.0 22.8 22.4

PAGE 73

73 CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION The following chapter uses the results from the questionnaire, field survey, and spot speed studies to dete rmine the effectiveness of psychological traffic calming within the study areas The evaluation of effectiveness was broken down into the following quest ions: Do neighborhood residents feel safe among calming schemes that are more psychological than physic al? Does driving behavior change when drivers enter the psychologically calmed neighborhoods? Do psychological calming schemes slow traffic to levels similar to that of physical calming? Do psychological calming schemes keep traffic at speeds comparable to residential street design best practices? Do psychological calming schemes slow traffic to levels acceptable to neighborhood residents? Does successful psychological calming require intensive design and infrastructure, or can it also be successful in loca tions with few formal design elements? Deficiencies in effectiveness are addressed, and recommendations for improving these deficiencies are proposed. Finally, limitations identified within the methodology and results are discussed. Perception of Safety Pe rtinent respondent statistics are summarized in Table 5 1. A great majority from both neighborhoods felt safe crossing anywhere along the street as well as at all intersections. However, neither neighborhood felt their streets were safe enough for children to play on. In this case, the actual safety level of streets may not have been the most important factor to respondents when answering. Instead, many may have simply

PAGE 74

74 felt that streets should not be used as public space or that children should not be expos ed to any risk beyond the perceived minimum. A major difference between the study areas w as seen in the perceptions of road user behavior. Compared to College Park, residents in Haile Village Center tended to be more confident in the attentiveness of motor ists, pedestrians, and bicyclists and more comfortable with the speed of drivers on their streets. Many of the free responses received for College Park mentioned that stop signs on the east west streets were often not obeyed by road users, so a lot of the general distrust of other road users may stem from this phenomenon. Additionally, external to external vehicle trips, or cut through traffic, may be a factor. On the whole though the questionnaire results ma de it clear that neighborhood residents of both Haile Village Center and the College Park study area felt their psychologically calmed streets were safe for pedestrians with 92.4% and 65% respectively, either agreeing or strongly agreeing Driver Behavior In Haile Village Center, a large majority of r espondents claimed to change driving behavior when entering the neighborhood. Similarly, they largely claimed to slow down and communicate with other road users non verbally. This is consistent with the theory that a psychologically calmed area will create slower, more attentive drivers. In Colleg e Park, the fact that only 55.6% of respondents reported communicating non verbally with pedestrians, bicyclists, and other motorists upon entering the neighborhood street network was surprising. The design of most street segments in this neighborhood, including the two selected for deeper study, requires that users share a single, narrow travelway, and Woonerf and shared space case studies typically

PAGE 75

75 indicate d that streets such as these encourage pedestrian driver c ommunication by design. One survey respondent expressed dissatisfaction with the behavior of College Park drivers: Drivers on these streets are often openly hostile to pedestrian and cyclists; the danger, then, is not only a matter of infrastructure, but also cultural attitude (i.e., the absolute power of the individual owner automobile over all other forms of transportation). I LIKE my narrow, sidewalk free streets. The problem is the recklessness, obliviousness, and hostility of drivers. Another respond ent reported far better behavior and etiquette on the part of While biking, I have only been cut off by a driver running a stop sign once and they clearly realized their mistake immediately and acted apologetic. I actually like the l ack of sidewalks on most of the streets and enjoy wa lking in the middle By comparison, Haile Village Center, which separates pedestrian and motorized traffic, reported a non verbal communication percentage of 73.6. Perhaps other design and con textual factors such as proximity to the high speed and volume NW 13 th Street, contributed to this unexpected behavioral tendency in College Park. Speeds Compared to Physical Traffic Calming The statistics from the spo t speed studies match ed up fairly wel l with the speed goals of physical traffic calming mechanisms. A 90 foot radius chicane aims for traffic speeds of 20 to 25 mph and a standard speed hump has a design speed of 15 to 20 mph ( Ewing, 1996). Of the segment mean and 85 th percentile speeds, onl y the 85 th percentile speed of NW 15 th Street was above the speed range of the 90 foot chicane. Additionally, neither the mean nor 85 th percentile speed for NW 15 th Street fell within the design speed of a speed hump. The 85 th percentile speeds of all the other segments

PAGE 76

76 were slightly above the range of the speed hump At the same time all the mean speeds of those segments fell comfortably into speed hump range. Overall, NW 15 th Street in College Park was the only segment to not perform on comparable levels with physical calming measures. Speeds Compared to Design Best Practices and Livable Street Standards Previously, local roads in the United States had been held to a minimum design speed of 30 mph (Ewing, 1996, p. 66). In t he City of Gainesville some resi dential streets are signed for speeds below this value, but 30 mph is the default limit for unsigned streets. In recent years, many have advocated lower speeds for various types of local streets Nelessen (1994) recommends a limit of 25 mph for streets in newly constructed small communities (p.190). Street standard researchers Southworth and Ben Joseph (1997) suggest that speed on residential streets be below 20 mph ( p. 145). Meanwhile, slow speed areas with pedestrian concerns in the Netherlands usually a im for a 30 kilometer per hour, or about 19 mph, design speed (Tolley, 1997, p. 272). A joint publication of the Urban Land Institute (ULI), National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and Institute of Transpor tation Engineers (ITE) recommends 20 mph for local streets on level terrain but allows 30 mph for residential collectors on level terrain, reasoning that the collector has greater movement needs (2001, p. 20). As mentioned in Chapter 2, t he difference in pedestrian safety between 30 mph and 20 mph is staggering. Whereas a pedestrian has a n 8 5% chance of surviving a traffic collision at 20 mph, the survival rate drops to 55 % at 30 mph ( United Kingdom Department of Transportation, 1987 ). Considering 16.3% of drivers and 10% of pedestrians in Haile Village Center and 10.5 % of drivers and 30% of pedestrians in

PAGE 77

77 College Park claimed to have had close calls in neighborhood traffic, keeping speeds at 20 mph or lower would be a good precaution. However, Appleyard (1 981) advises that a speed limit of 15 mph may even be too much if children are known to utilize the street as a play zone (p. 296). Table 5 2 displays the discussed best practice speeds, along with all the observed segment mean and 85 th percentile speeds, in order from highest to lowest value. By these policies and standards, the observed mean and median speeds for both street segments in Haile Village Center were relatively low. Further, the 85th percentile speeds measure d at or be low the 20 mph design sta ndard. The NW 15 th Street 85 th percentile speed in College Park did not compare favorably to any of the standard s except the 30 mph speed limit typically seen for residential streets in the United States and the ULI design speed for residential collectors. On the other hand, the results for NW 13 th Terrace closely matched the performance of the Haile Village Center segments. It should be noted that n either the 85 th percentile speed nor the mean speed for any of the segments reached the 15 mph or lower recom mended by Appleyard for streets with children at play. This result gives a degree of legitimacy to the prevailing sentiment that the streets are not safe enough for children to play on in either neighborhood. Speeds Compared to Desired Levels of Residents A comparison of segment speed results and the average desired neighborhood speed calculated from questionnaire results can be seen in Table 5 3. None of the 85 th percentile speeds satisfy the desired speeds. All segments aside from NW 15 th Street had mean speeds below the desired levels, however.

PAGE 78

78 Given these and previous results, should the NW 15 th Street se g ment be considered unsafe for pedestrians and the psychological scheme deemed unsuccessful? The answer depends on how NW 15 th Street is prioritized. Cl early, not all streets should be designed primarily for the movement of automobiles, as once suggested by Le Corbusier and a generation of traffic engineers. Likewise, not all streets should be woonerven or shared spaces. There are many street design typol ogies in between with various levels of automobile or pedestrian priority. As a purely local, residential street, NW 15 th Street exceeds physical calming, best practice, and desired speed standards. As a residential collector that gives a greater amount of priority to the expedited movement of motor vehicles, it is acceptable. Since NW 15 th Street connects W University Avenue with NW 8 th Avenue, two major east west movement corridors, the residential collector classification may be more appropriate. However in the residential collector scenario, more design elements would ultimately be needed to protect a more vulnerable population of bicyclists and pedestrians. Through the comparisons to physical calming and best practices, the other three segments looked as though they were successfully calming traffic through psychological means. Nevertheless, the 85 th percentile speeds for these segments were all slightly Ove ra ll, the 85 th percentile speeds cannot increase much more w ithout creating a negative impact on the neighborhood perceptions of street safety. Formal versus Informal Psychological Schemes NW 13 th Terrace is a very different street from SW 91 Terrace and SW 91 Drive in terms of design. NW 13 th Terrace ha s no curb no pedestrian realm, no street enclosure from buildings, and wide setbacks. The Haile Village Center streets, on the other hand,

PAGE 79

79 utilize all five elements of psychological calming in their design : (a) context (b) scale (c) proportion, (d) roadside acti vity and (e) road surface At the same time all three streets had very s imilar observed speed profiles. In actuality, NW 13 th Terrace uses at least four of these elements, only informally. The entire College Park study area benefits from the residential student oriented context B y some measures, this context could be considered more urban than that of Haile Village Center. As mentioned in the results of the field survey, the College Park study area has a higher residential unit density, 6.36 units per acre, than Haile Village Center, 5.88 units per acre. long front and side building setback, few sidewalks and no curbs College Park has a potentially greater residential presence. The reside ntial context of College Park both generates and supports a large amount of roadside activity. For a bout every 4 motor vehicles on NW 13 th Terrace, there was one bicyclist and one pedestrian. On NW 15 th Street there was one bicyclist and one pedestrian abo ut every 3 motor vehicles. Since t hese bicyclists and pedestrians shared the road surface with motor vehicles, drivers usually slowed down to accommodate them The need to accommodate pedestrians and bicyclists is compounded by the scale of the road and t he condition of the road surface. Not only are the roads narrow by design, but during observation, they were typically covered by 1.5 to 2 ft of soil and other debris on either side of the pavement. While the actual width of NW 13 th Terrace is 16 ft, the effective width was 12 to 13 ft only wide enough for one car at a time to

PAGE 80

80 proceed. Drivers likely realized this and reduced speed in anticipation of any on coming traffic. Before it can be determined if the informal scheme is effective like the formal sc heme, the case of NW 15 th Street must be touched upon. The College Park study area is smaller and has twice as many access points compared to Haile Village Center. monument and other visual cu es that may lead some drivers to slow as they enter the neighborhood. Additionally, the density of residences and businesses combined with new urbanist design elements, contrasts dramatically with the adjacent neighborhoods, filled predominantly with deta ched single family dwellings. Haile Village Center is an enclave of urban character. On the other hand, t he transition into the College Park study area is not quite as defined as Haile Village Center at street level While street design in surrounding neig hborhoods is more formalized, housing stock and lot setbacks are similar. Because of this degree of homogeneity, the trigger to change drivin g behavior may not be as strong, especially for cut through traffic on NW 15 th Street. Though volume analysis was n ot included in the methodology, the high volume of traffic on NW 15 th Street should be noted. The study segment carried 100 more motor vehicles over the four hour AM and PM observation period s than the second most traveled segment in Haile. Per hour during the peak periods NW 15 th Street carried 62.5 motor vehicles Two streets eastward, NW 13 th Terrace carried only 21.8 motor vehicles per hour. In Haile Village Center, SW 91 Terrace and SW 91 Drive carried 37.3 and 14.8 motor vehicles per hour, respective ly.

PAGE 81

81 What if the traffic volume doubled due to new developments and/or changing travel patterns? A set of shared space guidelines by the United Kingdom Department for Transport (2011) suggests that, above 100 motor vehicles per house, pedestrians perceive t he roadway as a place to cross rather than a place to co occupy with motor vehicles (p, 13). Doubling the NW 15 th Street traffic volume would create a peak period flow of 125 motor vehicles per hour, potentially creating a conflict between pedestrians and automobiles for use of the roadway surface The other three street segments would remain below the 100 motor vehicle per hour threshold. Volumes are summarized in Table 5 4. Overall, high traffic volume s and the cut through mentality of drivers likely prev ent the NW 15 th Street segment from calming traffic as effectively as NW 13 th Terrace Despite its informal design, the College Park neighborhood calms traffic through mechanisms similar to the intensively designed Haile Village Center. Furthermore the ef fectiveness of the informal calming scheme was also comparable to the formal calming scheme However, NW 15 th Street has a few issues that merit a formal design treatment. The following section discusses recommendations for its improvement and the develop m ent of a psychologically calmed street design typology. Recommendations The process of determining a psychological calming treatment for NW 15 th Street begins with the identification of safety deficiencies. According to the preceding analysis, NW 15 th Stre et has mean and 85 th percentile vehicle speeds that are higher than the design speeds of physical traffic calming, most livable streets guidelines, and the desired speed from the questionnaire. Additionally, the peak period traffic volume may be too high t o allow a shared space scheme to properly function. The questionnaire

PAGE 82

82 results also suggest that drivers in College park do not change their driving behavior or slow down upon entering the neighborhood to the degree of Haile Village Center respondents. Non verbal communication with bicyclists and pedestrians is also less common in College Park than in Haile Village Center After understanding the deficiencies, t he designer must decide which elements will be changed and to what extent. Of the five elements of psychological traffic calming, road surface and street scale are the most easily altered assuming control of the right of way. Context and roadside activity cannot be directly changed by calming treatments. However, they might be indirectly changed as par t of a short or long term result Proportion cannot be modified if the designer has no control over building heights and setbacks of surrounding properties, which is assumed for this process In maintaining and improving the shared space scheme, NW 15 th St reet only needs small alterations to road surface and street scale. On each side of the street, one foot of roadway and 2.5 ft of right of way should be paved with bricks or some material similar in color and texture. These pavers should be at grade with t he asphalt roadway This design intervention clearly defines a pedestrian realm within the pavers but continues to allow both vehicle and pedestrian to share the road surface. This curb less design feature is similar to the woonerven in Delft and the share d space in Oosterwolde, Netherlands (Appleyard, 1981; McNichol, 2004) Additionally, the ability to park on properties along the street would not be affected. Without a curb, residents and visitors would be able access any driveway or parking area. Similar ly, t he residential streets of Seaside, Florida, use a curb less, shared space design to maintain automobile access at the side of the street (Southworth & Ben Joseph, 1997)

PAGE 83

83 Buffed surfacing in a color contrasting the asphalt should be installed at all th e intersections leading into the NW 15 th Street study segment. This treatment would define cross walk areas for pedestrians and compel drivers to slow down by signaling a change in environment. Additionally, p edestrian scale lighting poles, placed a few f eet beyond the edge of the pavers on both sides of the street, would strengthen the pedestrian realm Slowing drivers via buffed surfaces and i mproving the definition of the pedestrian scale through human scale lighting were element s of the Latton, England psychological traffic calming scheme (Kennedy, 2005). The spirit of the preceding research might suggest that the treatment process of NW 15 th Street should include the removal of the traffic circle at the intersection with NW 7 th Avenue, making the calmi ng scheme fully psychological. However, since the traffic circle is a major traffic control feature for the NW 7 th Avenue corridor, judgment should be reserved until that corridor has been analyzed in a similar manner to NW 15 th Street. D epictions of the d esign recommendations can be seen in Figure 5 1 and 5 2. Figure 5 1 shows the pedestrian realm pavers and human scale lighting poles in before and after section profile view s Figure 5 2 shows pavers intersection buffed surfacing and lighting pole spacin g in a plan view. Limitations The questionnaire response rate for the College Park study area was 28.6%, 14% lower than the rate for Haile Village Center. To a certain extent, this low response rate was expected. The questionnaire was administered between early July and early August outside the main academic year for the University of Florida Since many of the residents of College Park are college students some were probably not in residence at

PAGE 84

84 the time the questionnaire packages were mailed. A larger re sponse would have yielded a more accurate representation of the College Park study area, but the 20 that did respond provided valuable feedback and insight

PAGE 85

85 A B Figure 5 1. Section profile views of NW 15 th Street before and after treatment. A) Befo re treatment B) After treatment, with pedestrian realm pavers and human scale lighting poles.

PAGE 86

86 Figure 5 2. Plan view of NW 15 th Street after design recommendations. Yellow areas represent the paved pedestrian realm; red areas represent the buffed surfa cing at intersections; and small black dots represent the lighting poles. Red dots indicate stop sign traffic control installations. Red rimmed triangles with white background show yield sign locations

PAGE 87

87 Table 5 1. Summary of safety perceptions Statement H aile Village Center Response College Park Response As a pedestrian, I feel safe crossing the street at all intersections in my neighborhood. 90% either agree or strongly agree 80% either agree or strongly agree As a pedestrian, I feel safe crossing anyw here along the street in my neighborhood. 88.8% either agree or strongly agree 70% either agree or strongly agree Drivers in my neighborhood do not pay enough attention. Only 22.6% either agree or strongly agree 45% either agree or strongly agree Pedes trians in my neighborhood do not pay enough attention. Only 26.3% either agree or strongly agree 45% either agree or strongly agree Bicyclists in my neighborhood do not pay enough attention. Only 20.3% either agree or strongly agree 50% either agree or strongly agree Drivers go too fast in my neighborhood. Only 21.3% either agree or strongly agree 45% either agree or strongly agree The streets in my neighborhood are safe enough for children to play on during daytime hours. Only 21.5% either agree or strongly agree 55% either disagree or strongly disagree Overall, the streets in my neighborhood are safe for pedestrians. 92.4% either agree or strongly agree 65% either agree or disagree

PAGE 88

88 Table 5 2. Design best practice and livable street speeds c ompared to segment results Source Street Context Speed (mph) Typical U.S. Standard (Ewing, 1996) residential 30 .0 ULI, NAHB, ASCE, & ITE (2001) residential collector on level terrain 30 .0 NW 15 th Street 85 th percentile speed residential 28.3 Nelesse n (1994) for small communities 25 .0 NW 15 th Street mean speed residential 24.5 NW 13 th Terrace 85 th percentile speed residential 22.4 SW 91 Terrace 85 th percentile speed residential/office 20.4 SW 91 Drive 85 th percentile speed residential 2 0 .2 ULI, NAHB, ASCE, & ITE (2001) local street on level terrain 20 .0 Southworth and Ben Joseph (1997) residential below 20 .0 Netherlands standards slow speed street 19 .0 NW 13 th Terrace mean speed residential 18.3 SW 91 Terrace mean speed residential /office 18.2 SW 91 Driver mean speed residential 17.3 Appleyard (1981) residential with children playing below 15 .0 Table organized from to bottom by highest to lowest speed. Segment results in bolded italics.

PAGE 89

89 Table 5 3. Segment speed results comp ared to desired neighborhood speed Segment Mean speed (mph) 85 th percentile speed (mph) Average desired speed (mph) SW 91 Terrace 18.2 20.4 17.8 SW 91 Drive 17.3 20.2 17.8 NW 15 th Street 24.5 28.3 21.8 NW 13 th Terrace 18.3 22.4 21.8 Table 5 4. Stre et segment traffic volume s Segment Four hour observed vehicle count Observed peak period traffic volume (vehicles per hour) Double traffic scenario peak period traffic volume (vehicles per hour) SW 91 Terrace 149 37.3 74.6 SW 91 Drive 59 14.8 29.6 NW 15 th Street 250 62.5 125 .0 NW 13 th Terrace 87 21.8 43.6

PAGE 90

90 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSION In the United States, streets are often viewed only as channels of automobile movement rather than places for all would be users High traffic volumes and excessive speeds thr eaten the safety and experience of residents along the street and pedestrians. Reducing volumes and speeds has been accomplished using physical traffic calming devices that deflect vehicles either horizontally or vertically. In recent decades, p sychologica l traffic calming techniques have prove d a successful and popular alternative to traditional, physical means in many countries outside the United States. As defined by Kennedy (2005), psychological calming schemes contain five basic elements of design: (a) context, such as road type and environmental character; (b) scale, regarding road width and building height; (c) proportion, like the enclosure formed by the juxtaposition of road width and building height; (d) roadside activity, via pedestrians, cyclists and parked vehicles; (e) road surface, including color and texture Instead of forcing drivers to slow down like physical traffic calming, psychological traffic calming compels drivers to slow down through environmental stimuli. Up until now, however, fe w studies have documented the effectiveness of existing schemes in America. The results suggest ed a considerable presence of psychological traffic calming elements in both neighborhoods, particularly along the selected study segments. Overall, most residen ts in both neighborhoods perceived their streets to be safe for pedestrians 92.4% in Hail e Village Center compared to 65% in the College Park study area. For three out of four study segments, t he 85 th percentile speeds were below the 2 5 mph design speed recommended by Nelessen (1994) for comfortable pedestrian

PAGE 91

91 streets in small communities The fourth segment, NW 15 th Street, was victim to large amounts of cut through traffic but still had an 85 th percentile speed below the 30 mph speed limit of local stre ets in Gainesville. Cumulatively, t hese conditions impl ied that p sychological traffic calming schemes methods can work in the United States, both intentionally in a master designed private community like Haile Village Center and informally on a public stre et grid like College Park. Future research into the effectiveness of psychological traffic calming should look to expand the study population to include not only neighborhood residents but also business owners, visitors, and children. All these groups have a stake in and perspective about the safety of their streets. Ideally, speed and volume observations would be performed on a network scale, rather than using example segments and measuring only speed, as done in this study. Research that is comprehensive in scope, meticulous in analysis and easy for the public to understand will be necessary if psychological traffic calming is ever to replace conventional physical methods in the United States

PAGE 92

92 APPENDIX A RESEARCH QUESTIONNAI RES University of Florida Gain esville, FL 32611 Department of Urban and Regional Planning 431 ARCH Building Dear Neighborhood Resident: I am a graduate student at the University of Florida in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning. As part of my coursework I am conducting a que stionnaire, the purpose of which is to better understand street safety within your neighborhood. I am asking you to participate in this questionnaire because you likely use streets on a daily basis and have acquired many experiences on them and opinions about them It is not exactly known how people like you view neighborhood street safety issues so I am attempting to find out. The questionnaire will take about 5 minutes to complete and is enclosed with this letter. You will not have to answer any question you do not wish to answer. None of the questions relate to personal identity. Any incidental sources of identity, such as your return address, will be kept confidential to the extent provided by law and will not be used in compiling survey results or preparing the final manuscript. There are no anticipated risks, compensation or other direct benefits to you as a participant in this research questionnaire. If you have any additional questions about my research protocol, please conta ct me by email at (redacted) or by phone at (redacted) My faculty supervisor, Dr. Ruth Steiner, may be contacted at ( redacted) The results of my research will be available in November, and I would be happy to address any inquiries about these results by email or phone Questions or concerns about your rights as a research participant may be directed to the IRB02 office, University of Florida, Box 112250, Gainesville, FL 32611; (352) 392 0433. C ompleted questionnaire s may be returned using the enclosed pr epaid envelope. By returning this questionnaire you agree to participate in this research, certify that you are above 18 years of age, and give me permission to report your responses anonymously in the final manuscript to be submitted to my faculty superv isor as part of my course work. Your partic ipation is completely voluntary, and y ou may withdraw your consent at anytime without penalty You may keep this letter for your records. Sincerely, William Lisska

PAGE 93

93 Haile Village Center Street Safety Questionn aire primarily concerned with the area enclosed by the dotted black outline seen on the map below. When uestionnaire, it refers to the part of the neighborhood contained within the dotted black outline Estimated time to complete questionnaire: 5 minutes. Map of Haile Village Center Research Area

PAGE 94

94 Experiences as a Driver For questions 1 through 4, please f ill in the circle that best fits your response to the question. 1. Do you have access to a car? (If no, you may skip questions 2 through 4) Yes No 2. How frequently do you drive to reach destinations? (If never, you may skip questions 3 and 4) Regularly Occasionally Rarely Never 3. Does your driving behavior change when you enter Haile Village Center from a main road (i.e., SW 91 Street or SW 46 Boulevard)? Yes No Sometimes 3a. Do you typically slow down? Yes No Someti mes 3b. Do you ever communicate with pedestrian, bicyclists, or other drivers in a non verbal manner (e.g. eye contact, hand gestures)? Yes No Sometimes 4. As a driver, have you ever had a collision or close call with a pedestrian in Haile Vill age Center? Yes, collision Yes, close call No Experiences as a Pedestrian For questions 5 and 6, please fill in the circle that best fits your response to the question. 5. How frequently do you walk to reach destinations? Regul arly Occasionally Rarely Never 6. As a pedestrian, have you ever had a collision or close call with a car in Haile Village Center? Yes, collision Yes, close call No

PAGE 95

95 For questions 7 and 8, please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, neithe r agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements by filling in the appropriate circle. Question Scale of Reaction Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 7. As a pedestrian, I feel sa fe crossing the street at all intersections in Haile Village Center. 8. As a pedestrian, I feel safe crossing anywhere along the street in Haile Village Center. Safety Perceptions For questions 9 through 17, please indicate whethe r you strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements by filling in the appropriate circle. Question Scale of Reaction Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disa gree 9. Drivers in Haile Village Center do not pay enough attention. 10. Pedestrians in Haile Village Center do not pay enough attention. 11. Bicyclists in Haile Village Center do not pay enough attention. 12. Drivers go too fast in Haile Village Center. 13. Pedestrian safety is a matter of transportation infrastructure design (street, sidewalk, and intersection). 14. It is important for streets to have sidewalks to create a safe environment for pedestrians. 15. The streets in Haile Village Center are safe enough for children to play on during daytime hours.

PAGE 96

96 Question Scale of Reaction Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disa gree 16. There is sufficient traffic control (e.g. stop signs, road markings, speed limit signs) in Haile Village Center. 17. Overall, the streets in Haile Village Center are safe for pedestrians. For question 18, please write in your answer. miles per hou r)? ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ Additional Feedback For questions 19 and 20, please write in your answer. 19. Do any streets in Haile Village Center stand out in your mind as unsafe? Please be specific. ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ 20. Please share any additional comments about the safety or qual ity of the streets in your neighborhood; suggestions to improve safety; or experiences as a driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist. ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________

PAGE 97

97 General Information For questions 21 through 23, please fill in the circle to indicate your answer. 21. What i s your gender? Male Female 22. What is your present age? 18 24 25 34 35 44 45 54 55+ 23. What is the highest level of education that you have completed? Some high school Completed high school Some college Asso degree Bachelor degree Some graduate work Graduate degree For questions 24, please write in your answer. 24. How long have you lived in Haile Village Center? ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ Thank you for taking the time to fill out my questionnaire. Please return the ques tionnaire in the prepaid return envelope by August 19, 2011. Your expertise and input, as part of my research, are greatly appreciated.

PAGE 98

98 College Park Street Safety Questionnaire Please fill out this questionnaire regarding the safety of stre ets in the College Park neighborhood. My research is primarily concerned with the streets in the area enclosed by the dotted black outline seen the Col lege Park neighborhood contained within the dotted black outline Estimated time to complete questionnaire: 5 minutes. Map of College Park Study Area

PAGE 99

99 Experiences as a Driver For questions 1 through 4, please fill in the circle that best fits your respo nse to the question. 1. Do you have access to a car? (If no, you may skip questions 2 through 4) Yes No 2. How frequently do you drive to reach destinations? (If never, you may skip questions 3 and 4) Regularly Occasionally Rarely Never 3. Does your driving behavior change when you enter your neighborhood from a main road (i.e., NW 13 Street, NW 5 Avenue, or NW 7 Avenue)? Yes No Sometimes 3a. Do you typically slow down? Yes No Sometimes 3b. Do you ever communicate wi th pedestrian, bicyclists, or other drivers in a non verbal manner (e.g. eye contact, hand gestures)? Yes No Sometimes 4. As a driver, have you ever had a collision or close call with a pedestrian in your neighborhood? Yes, collision Yes, close call No Experiences as a Pedestrian For questions 5 and 6, please fill in the circle that best fits your response to the question. 5. How frequently do you walk to reach destinations? Regularly Occasionally Rarely Never 6. As a pedestrian, have you ever had a collision or close call with a car in your neighborhood? Yes, collision Yes, close call No

PAGE 100

100 For questions 7 and 8, please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, or strongl y disagree with the following statements by filling in the appropriate circle. Question Scale of Reaction Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 7. As a pedestrian, I feel safe crossing the street at all intersectio ns in my neighborhood. 8. As a pedestrian, I feel safe crossing anywhere along the street in my neighborhood. Safety Perceptions For questions 9 through 17, please indicate whether you strongly agree, agree, neither agree nor disag ree, disagree, or strongly disagree with the following statements by filling in the appropriate circle. Question Scale of Reaction Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 9. Drivers in my neighborhood do not pay enou gh attention. 10. Pedestrians in my neighborhood do not pay enough attention. 11. Bicyclists in my neighborhood do not pay enough attention. 12. Drivers go too fast in my neighborhood. 13. Pedestrian safety is a matter of transportation infrastructure design (street, sidewalk, and intersection). 14. It is important for streets to have sidewalks to create a safe environment for pedestrians. 15. The streets in my neighborhood are safe en ough for children to play on during daytime hours.

PAGE 101

101 Question Scale of Reaction Strongly agree Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Strongly disagree 16. There is sufficient traffic control (e.g. stop signs, road markings, speed limit signs) in my neighborhood. 17. Overall, the streets in my neighborhood are safe for pedestrians. For question 18, please write in your answer. miles per hour)? ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ Additional Feedback For questions 19 and 20, please write in your answer. 19. Do any streets in your neighborhood stand out in your mind as unsafe? Please be specific. ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ 20. Please share any additional comments about the safety or quality of the streets in your neighborhood; suggestions to improve safety; or experiences as a driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist. ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________

PAGE 102

102 General Information For questions 21 through 23, please fill in the circle to indicate your answer. 21. What is your gender? Male Female 22. What is your present age? 18 24 25 34 35 44 45 54 55+ 23. What is the highest level of education that you have completed? Some high school Completed high school Some college degree Bachelor degree Some graduate work Graduate degree For questions 24, please write in your answer. 24. How long have you lived in your neighborhood? ________________________________ ________________________________ _______________ Thank you for taking the time to fill out my questionnaire. Please return the questionnaire in the prepaid return envelope by August 19, 2011. Your expertise and input, as part o f my research, are greatly appreciated.

PAGE 103

103 APPENDIX B VISUAL INVENTORY OF STUDY AREAS Figure A 1. Southbound progression of SW 91 Terrace (left) and SW 91 Drive (right)

PAGE 104

104 Figure A 2 Northbound progression of NW 15 th Street (left) and NW 13 th Terrace (right)

PAGE 105

105 APPENDIX C SPOT SPEED STUDY DAT A Table C 1. Distribution table for SW 91 Terrace AM spot speed study Speed Group AM Midd le Speed (mph) Observed Frequency in Group % Freq. in Group Cum. % Freq Lower Limit (mph) Upper Limit (mph) 6 8 7 0 0.0 0 .0 8 10 9 0 0.0 0.0 10 12 11 2 3.3 3.3 12 14 13 7 11.5 14.8 14 16 15 7 11.5 26.2 16 18 17 11 18.0 44.3 18 20 19 18 29.5 73. 8 20 22 21 12 19.7 93.4 22 24 23 2 3.3 96.7 24 26 25 0 0.0 96.7 26 28 27 2 3.3 100.0 28 30 29 0 0.0 100.0 30 32 31 0 0.0 100.0 32 34 33 0 0.0 100.0 34 36 35 0 0.0 100.0 36 38 37 0 0.0 100.0 38 40 39 0 0.0 100.0 61 100.0

PAGE 106

106 A B Figure C 1. Distribution curves for SW 91 Terrace AM spot speed study. A) Frequency curve. B) Cumulative frequency curve with 85 th and 15 th percentile levels marked by dotted grey lines. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 % Frequency Speed (mph) SW 91 Terr AM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Cumulative % Freq. Speed (mph) SW 91 Terr AM

PAGE 107

107 Table C 2. Distribution table for SW 91 Terrace PM spot speed study Spe ed Group PM Middle Speed (mph) Observed Frequency in Group % Freq. in Group Cum. % Freq Lower Limit (mph) Upper Limit (mph) 6 8 7 0 0.0 0 .0 8 10 9 0 0.0 0.0 10 12 11 1 1.1 1.1 12 14 13 1 1.1 2.3 14 16 15 9 10.2 12.5 16 18 17 24 27.3 39.8 18 20 19 24 27.3 67.0 20 22 21 15 17.0 84.1 22 24 23 4 4.5 88.6 24 26 25 6 6.8 95.5 26 28 27 3 3.4 98.9 28 30 29 1 1.1 100.0 30 32 31 0 0.0 100.0 32 34 33 0 0.0 100.0 34 36 35 0 0.0 100.0 36 38 37 0 0.0 100.0 38 40 39 0 0.0 100.0 88 100.0

PAGE 108

108 A B Figure C 2. Distribution curves for SW 91 Terrace PM spot speed study. A) Frequency curve. B) Cumulative frequency curve with 85 th and 15 th percentile levels marked by dotted grey lines. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 % Frequency Speed (mph) SW 91 Terr PM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Cumulative % Freq. Speed (mph) SW 91 Terr PM

PAGE 109

109 Table C 3. Distribution table for SW 91 Terrace combined s pot speed study Speed Group Combined Middle Speed (mph) Observed Frequency in Group % Freq. in Group Cum. % Freq Lower Limit (mph) Upper Limit (mph) 6 8 7 0 0.0 0 .0 8 10 9 0 0.0 0.0 10 12 11 3 2.0 2.0 12 14 13 8 5.4 7.4 14 16 15 16 10.7 18.1 16 18 17 35 23.5 41.6 18 20 19 42 28.2 69.8 20 22 21 27 18.1 87.9 22 24 23 6 4.0 91.9 24 26 25 6 4.0 96.0 26 28 27 5 3.4 99.3 28 30 29 1 0.7 100.0 30 32 31 0 0.0 100.0 32 34 33 0 0.0 100.0 34 36 35 0 0.0 100.0 36 38 37 0 0.0 100.0 38 40 39 0 0.0 10 0.0 149 100.0

PAGE 110

110 A B Figure C 3. Distribution curves for SW 91 Terrace combined spot speed study. A) Frequency curve. B) Cumulative frequency curve with 85 th and 15 th percentile levels marked by dotted grey lines. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 % Frequency Speed (mph) SW 91 Terr Combined 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Cumulative % Freq. Speed (mph) SW 91 Terr Combined

PAGE 111

111 Table C 4. Distribution t able for SW 91 Drive AM spot speed study Speed Group AM Middle Speed (mph) Observed Frequency in Group % Freq. in Group Cum. % Freq Lower Limit (mph) Upper Limit (mph) 6 8 7 0 0.0 0 .0 8 10 9 0 0.0 0.0 10 12 11 0 0.0 0.0 12 14 13 4 15.4 15.4 14 16 15 4 15.4 30.8 16 18 17 7 26.9 57.7 18 20 19 4 15.4 73.1 20 22 21 4 15.4 88.5 22 24 23 2 7.7 96.2 24 26 25 1 3.8 100.0 26 28 27 0 0.0 100.0 28 30 29 0 0.0 100.0 30 32 31 0 0.0 100.0 32 34 33 0 0.0 100.0 34 36 35 0 0.0 100.0 36 38 37 0 0.0 100.0 38 40 39 0 0.0 100.0 26 100.0

PAGE 112

112 A B Figure C 4. Distribution curves for SW 91 Drive AM spot speed study. A) Frequency curve. B) Cumulative frequency curve with 85 th and 15 th percentile levels marked by dotted grey lines. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 % Frequency Speed (mph) SW 91 Dr AM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Cumulative % Freq. Speed (mph) SW 91 Dr AM

PAGE 113

113 Table C 5. Dist ribution table for SW 91 Terrace PM spot speed study Speed Group PM Middle Speed (mph) Observed Frequency in Group % Freq. in Group Cum. % Freq Lower Limit (mph) Upper Limit (mph) 6 8 7 0 0.0 0 .0 8 10 9 0 0.0 0.0 10 12 11 1 3.0 3.0 12 14 13 3 9.1 12.1 14 16 15 4 12.1 24.2 16 18 17 10 30.3 54.5 18 20 19 8 24.2 78.8 20 22 21 4 12.1 90.9 22 24 23 0 0.0 90.9 24 26 25 3 9.1 100.0 26 28 27 0 0.0 100.0 28 30 29 0 0.0 100.0 30 32 31 0 0.0 100.0 32 34 33 0 0.0 100.0 34 36 35 0 0.0 100.0 36 38 37 0 0.0 100.0 38 40 39 0 0.0 100.0 33 100.0

PAGE 114

114 A B Figure C 5. Distribution curves for SW 91 Drive PM spot speed study. A) Frequency curve. B) Cumulative frequency curve with 85 th and 15 th percentile levels marked by dotted grey lines. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 % Frequency Speed (mph) SW 91 Dr PM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Cumulative % Freq. Speed (mph) SW 91 Dr PM

PAGE 115

115 Tabl e C 6. Distribution table for SW 91 Terrace combined spot speed study Speed Group Combined Middle Speed (mph) Observed Frequency in Group % Freq. in Group Cum. % Freq Lower Limit (mph) Upper Limit (mph) 6 8 7 0 0.0 0 .0 8 10 9 0 0.0 0.0 10 12 11 1 1.7 1.7 12 14 13 7 11.9 13.6 14 16 15 8 13.6 27.1 16 18 17 17 28.8 55.9 18 20 19 12 20.3 76.3 20 22 21 8 13.6 89.8 22 24 23 2 3.4 93.2 24 26 25 4 6.8 100.0 26 28 27 0 0.0 100.0 28 30 29 0 0.0 100.0 30 32 31 0 0.0 100.0 32 34 33 0 0.0 100.0 34 3 6 35 0 0.0 100.0 36 38 37 0 0.0 100.0 38 40 39 0 0.0 100.0 59 100.0

PAGE 116

116 A B Figure C 6. Distribution curves for SW 91 Drive combined spot speed study. A) Frequency curve. B) Cumulative frequency curve with 85 th and 15 th percentile levels mar ked by dotted grey lines. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 % Frequency Speed (mph) SW 91 Dr Combined 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Cumulative % Freq. Speed (mph) SW 91 Dr Combined

PAGE 117

117 Table C 7 Distribution table for NW 15 th Street A M spot speed study Speed Group AM Middle Speed (mph) Observed Frequency in Group % Freq. in Group Cum. % Freq Lower Limit (mph) Upper Limit (mph) 6 8 7 0 0.0 0 .0 8 10 9 0 0.0 0.0 10 12 11 0 0.0 0.0 12 14 13 0 0.0 0.0 14 16 15 0 0.0 0.0 16 18 17 1 1.4 1.4 18 20 19 5 7.0 8.5 20 22 21 7 9.9 18.3 22 24 23 13 18.3 36.6 24 26 25 11 15.5 52.1 26 28 27 16 22.5 74.6 28 30 29 12 16.9 91.5 30 32 31 3 4.2 95.8 32 34 33 1 1 .4 97.2 34 36 35 1 1.4 98.6 36 38 37 1 1.4 100.0 38 40 39 0 0.0 100.0 71 100.0

PAGE 118

118 A B Figure C 7. Distribution curves for NW 15 th Street AM spot speed study. A) Frequency curve. B) Cumulative frequency curve with 85 th and 15 th percentile l evels marked by dotted grey lines. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 % Frequency Speed (mph) NW 15th St AM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Cumulative % Freq. Speed (mph) NW 15th St AM

PAGE 119

119 Table C 8. Distribution table for NW 15 th Street PM spot speed study Speed Group PM Middle Speed (mph) Observed Frequency in Group % Freq. in Group Cum. % Freq Lower Limit (mph) Upper Limit (mph) 6 8 7 0 0.0 0 .0 8 10 9 0 0.0 0.0 10 12 11 0 0.0 0.0 12 14 13 0 0.0 0.0 14 16 15 1 0.6 0.6 16 18 17 5 2.8 3.4 18 20 19 15 8.4 11.7 20 22 21 23 12.8 24.6 22 24 23 38 21.2 45.8 24 26 25 30 16.8 62.6 26 28 27 25 14.0 76.5 28 30 29 21 11.7 88.3 30 32 31 17 9.5 97.8 32 34 33 2 1.1 98.9 34 36 35 2 1.1 100.0 36 38 37 0 0.0 100.0 38 40 39 0 0.0 100.0 179 100.0

PAGE 120

120 A B Figure C 8. Distribution curves for NW 15 th Street PM spot speed study. A) Frequency curve. B) Cumulative frequency curve with 85 th and 1 5 th percentile levels marked by dotted grey lines. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 % Frequency Speed (mph) NW 15th St PM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Cumulative % Freq. Speed (mph) NW 15th St PM

PAGE 121

121 Table C 9. Distribution table for NW 15 th Street combined spot speed study Speed Group Combined Middle Speed (mph) Observed Frequency in Group % Freq. in Group Cum. % Freq Lower Limit (mph) Upper Limit (mph) 6 8 7 0 0.0 0 .0 8 10 9 0 0.0 0.0 10 12 11 0 0.0 0.0 12 14 13 0 0.0 0.0 14 16 15 1 0.4 0.4 16 18 17 6 2.4 2.8 18 20 19 20 8.0 10.8 20 22 21 30 12.0 22.8 22 24 23 51 20.4 43.2 24 26 25 41 16.4 59.6 26 28 27 41 16.4 76.0 28 30 29 33 13. 2 89.2 30 32 31 20 8.0 97.2 32 34 33 3 1.2 98.4 34 36 35 3 1.2 99.6 36 38 37 1 0.4 100.0 38 40 39 0 0.0 100.0 250 100.0

PAGE 122

122 A B Figure C 9. Distribution curves for NW 15 th Street combined spot speed study. A) Frequency curve. B) Cumulativ e frequency curve with 85 th and 15 th percentile levels marked by dotted grey lines. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 % Frequency Speed (mph) NW 15th St Combined 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Cumulative % Freq. Speed (mph) NW 15th St Combined

PAGE 123

123 Table C 10. Distribution table for NW 13 th Terrace AM spot speed study Speed Group AM Middle Speed (mph) Observed Frequency in Group % Freq. in Group Cum. % Freq Lower Limit (mph) Upper Limit (mph) 6 8 7 0 0.0 0 .0 8 10 9 0 0.0 0.0 10 12 11 0 0.0 0.0 12 14 13 1 3.8 3.8 14 16 15 7 26.9 30.8 16 18 17 8 30.8 61.5 18 20 19 2 7.7 69.2 20 22 21 3 11.5 80.8 22 24 23 2 7.7 88.5 24 26 25 2 7.7 96.2 26 28 27 0 0.0 96 .2 28 30 29 1 3.8 100.0 30 32 31 0 0.0 100.0 32 34 33 0 0.0 100.0 34 36 35 0 0.0 100.0 36 38 37 0 0.0 100.0 38 40 39 0 0.0 100.0 26 100.0

PAGE 124

124 A B Figure C 10. Distribution curves for NW 13 th Terrace AM spot speed study. A) Frequency cur ve. B) Cumulative frequency curve with 85 th and 15 th percentile levels marked by dotted grey lines. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 % Frequency Speed (mph) NW 13th Terr AM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Cumulative % Freq. Speed (mph) NW 13th Terr AM

PAGE 125

125 Table C 11. Distribution table for NW 13 th Terrace PM spot speed study Speed Group PM Middle Speed (mph) Observed Frequency in Group % Freq. in Group Cum % Freq Lower Limit (mph) Upper Limit (mph) 6 8 7 0 0.0 0. 0 8 10 9 0 0.0 0.0 10 12 11 1 1.6 1.6 12 14 13 3 4.9 6.6 14 16 15 8 13.1 19.7 16 18 17 13 21.3 41.0 18 20 19 16 26.2 67.2 20 22 21 6 9.8 77.0 22 24 23 6 9.8 86.9 24 26 25 8 13.1 100. 0 26 28 27 0 0.0 100.0 28 30 29 0 0.0 100.0 30 32 31 0 0.0 100.0 32 34 33 0 0.0 100.0 34 36 35 0 0.0 100.0 36 38 37 0 0.0 100.0 38 40 39 0 0.0 100.0 61 100.0

PAGE 126

126 A B Figure C 11. Distribution curves for NW 13 th Terrace PM spot speed stu dy. A) Frequency curve. B) Cumulative frequency curve with 85 th and 15 th percentile levels marked by dotted grey lines. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 % Frequency Speed (mph) NW 13th Terr PM 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Cumulative % Freq. Speed (mph) NW 13th Terr PM

PAGE 127

127 Table C 12. Distribution table for NW 13 th Terrace combined spot speed study Speed Group Combined Middle Speed (mph) Observed Frequen cy in Group % Freq. in Group Cum. % Freq Lower Limit (mph) Upper Limit (mph) 6 8 7 0 0.0 0 .0 8 10 9 0 0.0 0.0 10 12 11 1 1.7 1.7 12 14 13 4 6.8 8.5 14 16 15 12 20.3 28.8 16 18 17 15 25.4 54.2 18 20 19 12 20.3 74.6 20 22 21 7 11.9 86.4 22 24 2 3 2 3.4 89.8 24 26 25 5 8.5 98.3 26 28 27 0 0.0 98.3 28 30 29 1 1.7 100.0 30 32 31 0 0.0 100.0 32 34 33 0 0.0 100.0 34 36 35 0 0.0 100.0 36 38 37 0 0.0 100.0 38 40 39 0 0.0 100.0 59 100.0

PAGE 128

128 A B Figure C 12. Distribution curves for NW 13 th Terrace combined spot speed study. A) Frequency curve. B) Cumulative frequency curve with 85 th and 15 th percentile levels marked by dotted grey lines. 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 % Frequency Speed (mph) NW 13th Terr Combined 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 Cumulative % Freq. Speed (mph) NW 13th Terr Combined

PAGE 129

129 LIST OF REFERENCES Appleyard, D. (1981). Livable s treets Berkeley and Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press. Baker, L. (2006, December 6). Where the s idewalk e nds. Seed Magazine Retrieved September 15, 2011 from http://seedmagazine.com/news/2006/12/where_the_side walk_ends.php Ben Bassat, E. (1996). Planned unit development: An analysis and case study of Haile Plantation Ben Joseph, E. (1995). Changing the residential street scene: Adapting the shared stre et (Woonerf) concept to the suburban environment. Journal of the American Planning Association 61 (4), 504 515. Department for Transport. (2011, October). Shared space. Retrieved October 15, 2011, from http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/ltn/1 11.pdf Du, J., Ivan, J., Gardner, P., & Aultman Hall, L. (2003). Public perceptions of traffic calming device installation. ITE Annual Meeting Compendium Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation En gineers. Retrieved September 1 5 2011, from http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/AB03H4302.pdf Eng wicht D ( 1993 ). Reclaiming our cities and towns: Better living with less traffic Philadelp hia : New Society Publishers. Engwicht, D. (1999). Street r eclaiming Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society Publishers. Ewing, R ( 1996 ). Best Development Practices Chicago : Planners Press, American Planning Association. Ewing, R & Brown, S. J. ( 2009 ) U.S t raffic c alming m anual American Planning Association Planners Press: Chicago. Ewing, R., & Brown, S. J. (2009, November). Traffic calming report: What European cities can teach us. Planning 75 (10), 32 35. Federal Highway Administration & Institute of Transportation Engineers. (1999, August). Traffic Calming: S tate of the practice Retrieved September 15, 2011 from http://www.ite.org/traffic/tcstate.asp#tcsop Florida Department of Trans portation. (1999, April). Florida p edestrian p lanning & d esign h andbook Retrieved September 15 20 11 from http://www.dot.state.fl.us/safety/ped_bike/handbooks_and _research/ped12_15.pdf

PAGE 130

130 Florida Department of Transportation. (2003, October). Transportation issues: Pedestrian safety Retrieved September 21, 2011, from http://www.dot.state.fl.us/research center/Completed_Proj/Summary_PL/FDOT_BC354_44_ped.pdf Hayward, R & McGlynn, S. ( 1993 ). Making better places: Urban design now Oxford, UK : Butterworth Architecture. Hoyle, C. L. (1995, July). Traffic calming (Ame rican Planning Advisory Service report no. 456). Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Kennedy, J V. (2005). Psychol ogical traffic c alming Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA): Proceedings of the 70 th RoSPA Safety Congress; Bright on, England, February 28 2 March, 2005. Retrieved September 15, 2011, from http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/conferences/congress2005/info/kennedy.pdf Kramer, R. (2001, February 11). Breaking the habit of suburbia Speech presented at Traditional Neighborhood Design Seminar, Atlanta. Text retrieved September 15 20 11 from http://www.webenet.com/newurbanism.htm Lennard S.H C., & Lennard, H. L. (1995). Livable cities observed. Carmel, CA: International Making Cities Livable Council. McNichol, T. (2004, December). Roads gone Wild. Wired Retrieved September 15, 2011, from http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html National Association of Home Builders, American Society of Civil Engineers, Institute of Transportation Engineers, and Urban Land Institute. (2001). Residential streets (3 rd ed). Wash ington, DC: ULI The Urban Land Institute. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2006). Traffic Safety Facts: Pedestrians Washington, DC: National Center for Statistics and Analysis. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. (2010). Traf fic safety fact sheet: 2009 pedestrians. Retrieved September 15, 2011, from http://www nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811394.pdf Nelessen, A. C. (1994). Visions for a New American Drea m: Process, Principle s, and an Ordinance to Plan and Design Small Communities. A merican Planning Association Planners Press: Chicago. Osmene, J. C. (1984). Haile Plantation: A case study of development process of a large planned unit development f Florida, Gainesville, FL. Richards, D. A. (2010, September). Relationship between s peed and r isk of f atal Injury: Pedestrians and c ar o ccupants London: Transport Research Laboratory. Retrieved September 1 5 2011, from http://assets.dft.gov.uk/publications/pgr roadsafety research rsrr theme5 researchreport16 pdf/rswp116.pdf

PAGE 131

131 Roess, R. P., Prassas, E. S., & McShane, W. R. (2004). Traffic e ngineering (3 rd ed). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall. Southworth, M., & Ben Joseph, E. ( 1997 ). Streets and the shaping of towns and cities New York: McGraw Hill Southworth, M., & Ben Joseph, E. (2003). Streets and the shaping of to wns and cities (2 nd ed) Washington, DC: Island Press. Tolley R (Ed.). ( 1997 ). The greening of urban transport (2 nd ed) Chichester, England : John Wiley & Sons Ltd. United Kingdom Department of Transportation. (1987). Killing Speed and Saving Lives Lond on: UK DOT. Wann, J. P., Poulter, D. R., & Purcell, C. (2011, March). Reduced sensitivity to visual looming inflates the risk posed by speeding vehicles when children try to cross the road. Psychological Science 22 pp. 429 434.

PAGE 132

132 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Willia m (Will) Retherford Lisska was born and raised in Jacksonville, Florida. After graduating high school in 2005, he attended Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tennessee. In Nashville, Will came to appreciate city living, witnessed the first bowl win for th e Vanderbilt Commodores in fifty three years and learned to tolerate country music. He graduated with a Bachelor of Civil Engineering in 2009 At one time Will was ready for a career in traffic engineering and highway planning, but because of his interest s in multimodal transportation and ur ban design he decided to pursue a Master of Arts in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Florida It was a good decision. Will enjoys college and professional football, international travel, biking, cooking, and mixology.