Neighborhood Physical

Assessment Project
Surveying San Francisco Streets

“There is magic to great streets. We are attracted to the best

of them not because we have to go there but because we
want to be there…They are symbols of a community and of
its history; they represent a public memory…”

~ Allan B. Jacobs, “Great Streets”

Environmental Health Section aims to protect 1390 Market Street, Suite 822
and promote healthy living and working San Francisco, CA

conditions for all San Franciscans

Phone: 415-252-3989
Fax: 415-252-3818
Email: cyndy.comerford@sfdph.org,
lindsay.wilson@sfdph.org
 “At the core…is the pedestrian. Pedestrians are the catalyst which makes the essential
qualities of communities meaningful. They create the place and time for casual
encounters and the practical integration of diverse places and people. Without the
pedestrian, a community’s common ground — its parks, sidewalks, squares and plazas,
become useless obstructions to the car. Pedestrians are the lost measure of a community;
they set the scale for both center and edge of our neighborhoods.”

~ Peter Calthorpe, “The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and the
American Dream”

Introduction and Overview

More than roadways for automobiles, city streets can serve many vital functions for
people: sidewalks and plazas are the public spaces where people can gather and
share experiences, raising the level of social capital; people walking on the streets
help keep neighborhoods safer from crime and violence by having more “eyes on the
streets;” walking is the most available form of exercise, not requiring special
preparation or equipment and is easily incorporated into daily lives; by
promoting pedestrian-oriented streets, fewer vehicles are present meaning less
noise and pollution. Walking can better many aspects of public health.

Unfortunately, over the past few decades, there has been a steady decline in the
number of people who walk. Rather than promote walking and social gathering
on streets, transportation engineers prioritize the streets for car usage. At
present, pedestrians and their needs are largely invisible in urban and
transportation planning process. As a result, people experience considerable
barriers to incorporate walking into their lifestyles. These barriers include
unfavorable land use patterns, inadequate and unsafe walking facilities and
neighborhood conditions that impede walking.

Creating and maintaining walkable streets needs to become a high priority for
urban planning. The overall goal of this project is to improve the quality of
public streets, increase safety, and make neighborhoods more pleasurable for
walking. We propose to design and implement an observational survey of
factors in the built environment that may affect people’s travel behavior.
Therefore, this project will inform land use and transportation planners in the
context of community design in San Francisco by identifying barriers and
opportunities for walking in the physical environment. This project and the
development of the survey can also support community based planning and
pedestrian advocacy.

2
Proposed Methodology

We reviewed journal articles, model cities’ pedestrian master plans, and rational
observations of street landscapes to identify observable environmental factors
related to walking. Consistent themes in urban pedestrian studies included:
functionality, safety, aesthetics, and destination (proximity of) (Pikora, T. et al,
2003; City of Portland, 1998; City of Oakland, 2002; City of Cambridge, 2000;
Kweon, B.S. et al, 2004). As this study is specifically concerned with the physical
environment, key themes were narrowed down to: dimensions and functionality,
and aesthetics. These themes categorize a group of indicators that are as follows:

Functionality and Dimensions

Number of Vehicle Lanes “The heavier the traffic and the higher the speed, the
less favorable the environment for pedestrians” (City of Cambridge, 2000). Peter
Calthorpe similarly stated at a lecture for World Environment Day 2005 that ‘the
quality of detail in our landscapes disappears because of the speed at which
people travel through the environment’ (Calthorpe, 2005). Vehicle lanes
correlate with the amount of traffic, the posted speed limit, the amount of noise
and pollution, the amount of pedestrian activity, and the level of social capitol in
an area (Appleyard, 1981). The rating scale is primarily based on Appleyard’s
study indicating that slower-paced streets create healthier environments.

Width of Sidewalk and Buffer The width needed for two pedestrian pairs to pass
each other is 8 feet (City of Cambridge, 2000). Creating too much space for the
pedestrian creates an “empty” space that does not attract pedestrian activities.
The buffer needed between pedestrian and vehicle is 2-3 ft to create comfort for
the pedestrian (City of Cambridge, 2000). However, through observation of the
streetscape there are more elements that create a buffer for pedestrians such as
bike lanes and parallel parking (lateral separation). The minimum for the buffer
is set at 2-3 ft.; the more elements that create a lateral separation between
pedestrians and traffic, the more points the street segment may acquire.

Impediments in Sidewalk Surface Care and maintenance of a sidewalk indicates

that an area is hospitable and safe for pedestrians. In Portland’s Pedestrian
Master Plan, this factor is number one on their list of “Principles for Pedestrian
Design” (City of Portland, 1998). Sidewalks were rated on the amount of
cracking, patching, buckling, weathering, holes, tree root intrusion, vegetative
encroachment, or standing water present (impediment also includes curb cuts

3
that discontinue the sidewalk for side streets and parking). Higher points were
given to segments with no impediments; a score of 0 was given to sidewalks with
many impediments (more than 3 occurrences of an impediment).

Presence of Continuous Curbs “Curbs are useful to provide a physical separation

between pedestrians and traffic. They stop vehicles from mounting the curb for
parking, and the gutter acts as a path for storm water drainage.” (Litman et al,
2000). The rating scale was based on the presence of continuous, sporadic, or
absence of curbs. Continuous curbs are classified as a continuous curb with the
only possible cuts being for street-crossings for pedestrians.

Aesthetics

Presence of Neighborhood Signage An important feature for pedestrians is to be

oriented. Whether their motives are destination-oriented or exploration-
oriented, the ability to be well-informed of their surroundings is important
(Therakomen, 2001). Signage indicating the respective neighborhood the street
segment lies in is the focus of this indicator. Not only does this kind of signage
orient the pedestrian, it also displays neighborhood cohesion. Neighborhoods
that display their involvement in their “place” take care of their surroundings to
a higher degree than neighborhoods that do not involve themselves in their
respective “place.” If signage is present, a point is given to the segment.

Presence of Greenery, Graffiti, Litter, Unique Architecture, Art, Seating, Vendors

Aspects of the urban landscape contribute to whether a pedestrian experiences
an overall positive or negative walking experience. Positive pedestrian
experiences create community, longevity of life, safety, and many other
restorative properties (Kaplan & Kaplan, 2003). Signs of nature, cleanliness,
interesting streetscapes, low noise-level, and sitting areas all promote interaction
and positive experiences from pedestrians (Bauman et al., 1996; Hawthorne,
1989; Untermann, 1984; Jacobs, 1993; Appleyard, Geison, & Lintell, 1976). Points
are given to segments for each positive aspect that they have; conversely, they
are given negative points for each negative aspect that they have.

With this list of indicators, we will be able to conduct an inventory of the

physical elements that construct the length of Mission Street (and connecting
streets). With a corresponding rating scale for each category, an overall score
will be configured for each street segment (Appendix, p6-7). Using GIS, these
scores will be represented on a choropleth map indicating the most desirable and
undesirable areas to walk (Figure 1).

4
Figure 1

5
 APPENDIX

Neighborhood Physical Assessment Project

Streetscape Survey

Street Segment:
Heading Indicator Rating Scale Points Side Rating
# Lanes of traffic 4-5 lanes 1-way 1 point
Functionality and
Dimensions 3 lanes 1-way, 4 lanes 2-way 2 points
Max 26 pts 2 lanes 1-way, 3 lanes 2-way 3 points
2 lanes 2-way 4 points
1 lane 1-way 5 points

Width of sidewalk and buffer 5-7 ft. 1 point

13-20 ft. 2 points
8-12 ft. 3 points
Tree line or cement 2-3 ft. Add 1 point
Bike lane Add 1 point Side 1
Parallel parking Add 1 point
Side 2

Impediments in sidewalk surface None 2 points

Few 1 points Side 1
Many 0 points
Side 2

Curb presence Continuous curb 2 points

Sporadic curb 1 point Side 1
No curb 0 points
Side 2

Aesthetics Trees Continuously lined 2 points

Max 24 pts Sporadically lined 1 point Side 1
Not lined 0 points
Side 2

Neighborhood signs/location None 0 points

Few 1 point Side 1
Many 2 points
Side 2

Planters, gardens, greenery None 0 points

Few 1 point Side 1
Many 2 points
Side 2
Public or private seating None 0 points
Few 1 point Side 1
Many 2 points
Side 2

Historical, unique buildings None 0 points

Few 1 point Side 1
Many 2 points
Side 2

Abandoned buildings, construction None 0 points

sites
Few neg 1 point Side 1
Many neg 2 points
Side 2

Unlawful graffiti Yes neg 1 point Side 1

No 1 point
Side 2

Littering Yes neg 1 point Side 1

No 1 point
Side 2

Overall Score

7
Bibliography

Appleyard, D., Geison, M., & Lintell, M. (1976). “Liveable urban streets: Managing auto
traffic in neighbourhoods.” Federal Highway Administration, Department of
Transportation, Washington, DC.

Appleyard, D. (1981). “Livable Streets.” Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Bauman, A., Wallner, F., Miners, A., & Westley-Wise, V. (1996). “No ifs no buts
Illawarra physical activity project: Baseline research report.” Commonwealth
Department of Health and Family Services, Warrong, NSW.

Berrigan D, Troiano RP (2002). “The association between urban form and physical
activity in U.S. adults.” American Journal of Preventative Medicine. Vol. 23, p74–
79.

Calthorpe, Peter. (2005). “Redesigning Metropolis.” Lecture. World Environment Day

2005. June 2, 2005.

City of Cambridge, Community Development Department. (2000) “Pedestrian Plan.”

Cambridge: City of Cambridge.

City of Oakland, Part of the Land Use and Transportation Element of the City of
Oakland‘s General Plan. (2002) “Oakland Pedestrian Master Plan.” Oakland: City of
Oakland.

City of Portland, Offices of Transportation, Transportation Engineering and

Development, Pedestrian Transportation Program. (1998) “Portland Pedestrian
Master Plan.” Portland: City of Portland.

City of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City Transportation Division. (2004) “Salt Lake City
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan.” Salt Lake City: City of Salt Lake City.

Cohen D., K.Mason, A.Bedimo, et al. (2003). “Neighborhood Physical Conditions and
Health.” American Journal of Public Health, Vol 93, p467-471.

Hawthorne, W. (1989). “Why Ontarians walk, why Ontarians don’t walk more: A study
of the walking habits of Ontarians.” Energy Probe Research Foundation, Ontario.

Homburger, Wolfgang, et al. (1989). “Residential Street Design and Traffic Control.”
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Chapter 2: "Residential Neighborhoods and
Their Streets," and Chapter 3: "Planning for Traffic Control."

Jacobs, A. (1993). “Great streets.” Cambridege, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

8
Kaplan, S. and R. Kaplan. (2003). “Health, supportive environments, and the reasonable
person model.” American Journal of Public Health. Vol. 93, No. 9, 1484-1489

Kweon, B.S., Naderi, J.R., Maghelal, P., and Shin, W.H. (2004) “Correlates of
Environmental Constructs and Perceived Safety Enhancements In Pedestrian
Corridors Adjacent to Urban Streets”. Report No. 167722. State of Texas, Texas
Transportation Institute.

Litman, T., Blair, R., Demopoulos, B., Eddy, N., Fritzel, A., Laidlaw, D., Maddox, H.,
Forster, K. (2000). “Pedestrian and Bicycle Planning Guide to Best Practices.” On-
going project. City of Victoria: Victoria.

Manson J.E., Greenland P., LaCroix A.Z., et al. “Walking compared with vigorous
exercise for the prevention of cardiovascular events in women.” NEJM. 2002;
347:716-725.

Pikora, T., Giles-Corti, B. Bull, F., Jamrozik, K., and Donovan, R. (2003). “Developing a
framework for assessment of the environmental determinants of walking and
cycling.” Social Science & Medicine, No. 56, 1693-1703.

Siegel, Paul Z., Brackbill, Robert M., and Heath, Gregory W. (May 1995) “The
Epidemiology of Walking for Exercise: Implications for Promoting Activity among
Sedentary Groups,” American Journal of Public Health.

Therakomen, Preechaya (2001). “The Experiments for Exploring Dynamic Behaviors in

Urban Places.” Thesis. Master of Architecture, University of Washington.

Unterman, R. (1987). Changing design standards for streets and roads. In A. Moudon
(Ed.), “Public streets for public use” (pp. 255–260). New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold.

Wigun, Marcus (October 1994). “Measurement and Evaluation of Non-Motorised

Transport”, Working Paper ITS-WP-94-15, Institute of Transport Studies.

Zador, P., Moshman, J., Marcus, L. (1984) “Adoption of Right Turn on Red: Effects on
Crashes at Signalized Intersections.” Accident Analysis and Prevention, Vol. 14, No.
3, 219-234.