Savannah CSD Manual

Co n te x t S e n s itiv e D e s ig n M a nua l
C hatham County- Sa va nna h Me tr opolita n Pla nning C o mmis s io n
Acknowledgements
Steering Committee Chatham County - Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission Dennis Hutton Mark Wilkes Courtland Hyser Jane Love Wykoda Wang
Georgia Department of Transportation Teresa Scott Keith Melton Andrew Hoenig Butch Welch
Preserving Savannah Neighborhoods Beth Kinstler Jack Knops Ardis Wood Savannah Tree Foundation Bill Saxman Dale Thorpe City of Savannah Park and Tree Department David White Chatham County Allan Black Dennis Goldbaugh SE Land Use Planning Commission Dale Morgan Georgia Department of Community Affairs Steve Gavigan Savannah Development Renewal Authority Lise Sundrla Pedestrian Advocates of the Coastal Empire (PACE) John Bennett
Table of Contents
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 Introduction Context Sensitive Solutions - State of the Practice The Inter-relationship Between Transportation, Land Use & Design Intent Of The Context Sensitive Design Guidelines Context Types In Savannah, Chatham County Landmark Historic Historic District Neighborhood Historic District Traditional Neighborhoods Village Center 4 5 9 21 22 Appendix A. B. C. Roadway Design Elements Guidelines For Connectivity And Built Form Additional Sources and Reference Material Links
6.0
Context Based Roadway Functional Classication Arterials Major and Minor Collectors Main Streets Neighborhood and Local Roads Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails
24
7.0
Design Guidelines Transect vs. Functional Classication Matrix Arterials Major Collectors Minor Collectors / Main Street Local Street Guidelines for Developing Canopy Streets Bicycle & Pedestrian Trails
25
8.0 9.0
The Process For Context Sensitive Solutions Interim Amenity Solutions
51 53
1.0 Int ro duc t i o n
In response to growing concerns with the loss of canopy trees and quality of life & environmental impacts of road construction projects, the Chatham Urban Transportation Study (CUTS) initiated a planning effort to develop a context sensitive design process for roadways known as the Transportation Amenities Program. In the form of a resolution undertaken by CUTS, a vision of the type of transportation systems desired for Savannah and Chatham County can be ascertained. The community goals reected in that resolution included: Trees, especially canopy trees, as an historic, essential element of Savannah and Chatham County Streets that include provisions for automobiles, bicycles, pedestrians and landscaping The provision for all of these uses as an integral part of the planning and design process
The rst phase in identifying these places was a documentation and conservation of existing transportation amenities such as canopy roadways, palm lined causeways, historic road segments, scenic vistas, and existing community gateways which the community desires to preserve. The corridors with these amenities have been designated as constrained corridors in the MPOs Congestion Management System as well as 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan. The designation stipulates that improvements to these corridors will be limited to management strategies such as signal timing, signal coordination, access management, turn lanes, intersection geometry improvements and the like. Phase Two of the program, which is the subject of this manual, involves the development of design guidelines and a design process that will incorporate desired transportation amenities into road construction projects. Toward that end, this design manual addresses many areas that might seem peripheral to CUTS stated goals (roadway network, land use, etc.), but which in fact relate to how the pieces of a community t together. Taken as a whole, the processes and guidelines can have the effect of pushing future projects closer to a balanced, livable system. All of the guidelines included in this document are consistent with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Ofcials (AASHTO) and Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) guidelines as well as local standards. It is hoped that these guidelines will show sensitivity to Savannah and Chatham Countys history and character by providing for canopy trees, landscaping, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, as well as public transportation. The guidelines have been developed in such a way as to allow them to be adopted and codied into local ordinances. However, this document alone cannot implement the types of fundamental changes that CUTS has envisioned. The type of history and character for which Savannah is internationally renowned does not happen by chance. All of the local municipalities will have to make a commitment to better projects; both in terms of policies and implementation. This will mean assignment of a person or persons who believe in these principles and see to their inclusion in projects. Only by identifying this local champion, can real follow through and ultimate results be expected to happen. While admittedly a long and arduous process, the end result will be to make all of Chatham County the special place it was always meant to be.
The challenge that these goals present, however, is greater than one might initially imagine. Like most places in the United States, Chatham County has developed many (perhaps mostly) large, fast roads over its recent history. While the provision of bicycle and pedestrian facilities seems a universally supportable goal, these travel modes are particularly vulnerable to interactions with high speed automobile trafc. In fact, as the following table illustrates, the mixture of pedestrians with high speed automobile trafc can prove fatal.
Speed 15 Mph 31 Mph 44 mph
Percentage of Pedestrian Fatalities in accidents 3.5% 37.0% 83.0%
Source: National Highway Trafc Safety Administration Federal Highway Administration
Likewise, canopy trees are difcult to integrate with high speed automobile trafc. Once vehicle design speeds rise above 40mph, federal guidance calls for lateral separation of 10 feet from the trafc ow. These types of setbacks make any effective tree canopy design impossible. If the goals outlined in the CUTS resolution are to become a reality, there clearly must be a long-term, sustained effort to identify areas where bicycles, pedestrians and trees are a primary desire, and make sure that the transportation designs undertaken in such areas make these elements compatible. Many communities are nding that the long desired goal of providing unlimited, fast capacity for cars, is not always in the best interest of the community. In fact, some of the underlying assumptions (more lanes = more efciency; faster trafc = higher capacity) are simply, technically untrue. The key to implementing CUTS goals long term is to nd the areas where a balance of vehicular mobility and community goals can be woven into the planning process in a technically sound way.
Context Sensitive Design Manual

Sa v a n n a h / Ch ath am Co u n ty
I ntr o d u c tio n
2.0 Co nt e x t Se nsi t i v e S o lu tio n s - S ta te o f th e P rac tic e
Concepts and principles born out of a context sensitive solutions (CSS) approach help develop transportation projects that serve all users and are compatible with the surroundings through which they pass the community and the environment. Based on a process that identies issues and concerns expressed by stakeholders and the community, successful CSS are results of a collaborative, multidisciplinary and holistic approach to transportation planning and project development. It involves a process of balancing competing interests and needs related to various issues at the very early stage and developing a balanced set of objectives based on needs and conditions specic to each project and its context.
Techniques of applying CSS Principles in transportation planning (FHWA)

(Source: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/csstp/cssqa.htm) The FHWA lists the following examples as possible techniques for applying CSS principles in transportation planning. Note that the realm of possibilities can extend beyond some of the techniques mentioned. The community context audit This Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT) process is a technique used to identify CSS in transportation planning as part of the overall Community Impact Assessment. The audit is performed early in the process as part of project identication in order to provide necessary documentation for supporting development of a projects purpose and funding allocation. PennDOT uses this technique to incorporate the views of various stakeholders as part of a multi-disciplinary approach. This approach is intended as a guide for identifying various community characteristics that make each transportation project location unique to its residents, businesses, and the general public by considering the communitys history or heritage, present conditions, and anticipated future conditions. This approach is used to dene the purpose and need of the proposed transportation improvements based on community goals and objectives and local plans for development
What is CSS?
CSS is a different way to approach the planning and design of transportation projects. It promotes exibility in the application of design controls, guidelines and standards to design a facility that is safe for all users regardless of the mode of travel they choose. The CSS process cannot guarantee resolution of issues or even alleviate all contention. It can, however, help identify issues that need resolution by keeping community values foremost in the evaluation of alternative solutions. A successful CSS process builds consensus among various stakeholders to reach the best possible solution and promotes community ownership as a result.
Brief History of CSS

Context Sensitive Solutions (CSS) began in 1991, when Congress passed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efciency Act (ISTEA). This legislation emphasized that, in addition to being safe, projects should be sensitive to their surrounding environment, especially in scenic or historic areas. Then in 1995, when the National Highway System was enacted (23 USC 109(c)), the planning and design guidelines stated that designs may take into account: the constructed and natural environment of the area; impacts of the project upon environmental, scenic, aesthetic, historic, community and preservation interests; and access for other modes of transportation. In 1997, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) published the Flexibility in Highway Design document which grew out of FHWAs strategic objective of providing safe and community friendly transportation projects nationwide. The next year, two events - the Maryland Department of Transportations national workshop on Thinking Beyond the Pavement and the subsequent selection of the states of Utah, Kentucky, Connecticut, Maryland and Minnesota for Context Sensitive Design (CSD) pilot projects by the FHWA and share the results, spurred the implementation of context sensitive solutions across the country. The awareness of context sensitive design began to grow and more conferences and workshops began to highlight the importance of this process. The FHWA, in 2003, commissioned Project for Public Spaces (PPS) to create a website for context sensitive solutions as a resource to facilitate its integration in the project development process. Since then, more publications have appeared and conferences and workshops have been conducted to enhance the understanding of CSS on transportation projects.
Scenario Planning Scenario planning is an analytical tool that provides transportation professionals with a framework for developing a shared future vision by analyzing various forces that affect growth (e.g., health, transportation, economic, environmental, and land-use). Scenario planning may be conducted at the Statewide or metropolitan levels to test various future alternatives that meet State and/or community needs. A dening characteristic of successful scenario planning is that it actively involves the public, business community, and elected ofcials on a broad scale, educating them about growth trends and trade-offs, and incorporating their values and feedback into future plans.
Placemaking The philosophy of placemaking centers on the belief that a public-participation process dening and responding to community conditions and needs from the outset is one of the most critical factors in achieving transportation design that is truly sensitive to its context. Placemaking begins with a thorough understanding of the dynamics, desires, and conditions within a community.

Conte xt Se nsitive Solutions - Sta te of the Pr a c tic e
Photographs can be utilized to make a systematic quantitative assessment of a communitys visual quality through a visual preference survey. Other tools and techniques to assist with gaining a better understanding of a place include: mapping special places as an exercise with the community; creating a photographic inventory of important scenic resources, landscape features and community characteristics; comparing photographs of locations within the community over time to understand physical development; assessing change in the community; comparing development patterns; and visualizing a change that may impact community valued resources. Resources include current and historic photographs and aerial photographs, maps, photographic samples of public space in the community, and visual preference surveys. Also included is imagining the future through the use of visualization techniques (e.g., photo enhancements, artist renderings, three-dimensional animation, videos, and scaled models).
A multi-disciplinary approach to the project development process allows the context to be addressed from the point of view of more than just the transportation function. However, a well executed CSS process does not guarantee excellence in transportation design. The design product should reect the well crafted combination of the CSS process element and the skilled early input of the designer. (source: http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/topics/process/) In the state of New Jersey, the Congestion Relief and Transportation Trust Fund Renewal Act signed into law in July 2000, requires the New Jersey Department of Transportation to have a context sensitive design program. It involves a commitment to a process that encourages transportation ofcials to collaborate with the community and stakeholders at the very early stages of a project. With formal training, engineers, project managers and community relations representatives, as well as consultants and community leaders have been trained in techniques to ensure good communication, consensus building and community participation, negotiation and conict resolution the tools necessary to ensure an effective process. As a part of this process, residents must also develop a formal concept of what they want their towns to look like in ve, ten and twenty years. NJDOT can then be a partner in fullling that vision and also explain any of its limitations on delivery of the project so local expectations can be realized. Such collaboration has resulted in creative transportation solutions that have stressed the importance of context and have responded through exibility in design. Four key Principles of New Jerseys CSS program are: Actively Seek Wide Public Involvement Early and Continuously Develop Designs that Meet the Needs of Specic Sites Work Collaboratively to engage a multidisciplinary team of professionals and public ofcials Use the Flexibility Contained in the Current (FHWA)Design Guidelines More recently the Georgia DOT has published an online version of their context sensitive design manual. It sets out the policy guidelines and procedures for communication strategy, interdisciplinary teamwork, design exibility, environmental sensitivity and stakeholder involvement which GDOT project managers and design engineers can use to achieve successful context sensitive solutions. Its ve principles of achieving CSS are based on the above and the overarching premise that a good process will lead to good solutions. Many examples around the country highlight the fact that often it is the process that leads to a better product. Signicant involvement of the public and continuous solicitation of input, interagency involvement and the tools and methods for making the interaction happen are key elements of the CSS process. Carrying out a collaborative design process is a difcult task because of the number of players involved and the need to respond to varying opinions. This task is amplied when design decisions are required. In such a situation, a charrette is one of the many useful tools that helps to ush out issues and subsequently the design options in a limited time frame. The National Charrette Institute is a non-prot educational institution that helps people build community capacity for collaboration to create healthy community plans. They have an established process called the dynamic planning process that involves stakeholders and professionals and helps to build plans from conceptual stages to implementation.
Efcient Transportation Decisionmaking Processes (ETDM): The Florida DOTs (FDOTs) EDTM process links land-use, transportation, and environmental resource planning, and facilitates early and interactive involvement to produce better environmental outcomes. As a result, FDOT is improving context sensitivity and the quality of decisions and environmental investments. For more information, go to http://www.dot.state..us/emo/ETDM.htm Geographic Information System (GIS) Applications: GIS-based Environmental Information Management and Decision Support Systems (EIM&DDS) in planning can facilitate analysis and support decision making for: Project screening; Analyzing progress toward environmental goals and objectives; Comparing transportation plan alternatives and impacts; and Considering avoidance of sensitive resources such as archaeological sites, wetlands, and protected habitat areas.
Context Sensitive Solutions : Efforts Around the Country

Context Sensitive Design / Solutions can be generally categorized into two broad aspects The process: that involves stakeholder and public participation and the tools used to achieve the desired result that is borne out of a commonly accepted set of decisions. The product: that takes into account the physical context of the place where the context sensitive solutions are applied through exibility in standards, aesthetic appeal or clearly out of the box design solutions. CSS is about open, honest, early and continuous communication and sharing of information and knowledge - not just professional knowledge, but the knowledge that communities and stakeholders bring to a project from their personal experience. CSS involves structuring a planning, design, and implementation process that is collaborative and creates consensus among stakeholders and the transportation agency.

Cas e S t u d i e s
U.S. Route 50, Virginia

(A case study that demonstrates the design response for a highway project as it passes through various contexts) The Project: This project is a national demonstration project, funded under TEA21.The corridor of Route 50 under study begins in the village of Paris, Virginia and continues through Upperville, Middleburg, Aldie, and ends at Lenah. Location: Loudoun-Fauquier Counties, Virginia Context Setting: Rural Road Classication: Minor arterial Stakeholders: VDOT, the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and the Virginia Outdoor Foundation for 106 Coordination and Preservation Easement information The Process: The intent of the project is to employ trafc calming measures that will require drivers to comply with posted speed limits within the towns and along the intervening roadway segments. Before a consultant team was hired for the project, a task force of interested citizens, local elected ofcials, a member of the Commonwealth Transportation Board and VDOT was formed. During the day informal meetings were held to introduce the consultants, the project concepts, and listen to those that choose to be heard. Through the 3- day period a list of potential stakeholders was developed. Members of the design team were available to meet with interested parties throughout the concept development portion of the project Lessons Learned: An important element of the CSD approach with this project was the willingness of the engineers to get away from a template mentality where often a typical section is designed and then uniformly applied to large areas of the corridor. The design team has been particularly sensitive to the need to look at design elements in the context of the existing resources so they enhance these resources, not overwhelm or detract from them. Having a design team that brings a full appreciation for the exibility in the design guidelines has been very important along with the ability to research and bring for consideration successful design concepts from other states and countries.
Euclid Avenue, Lexington, Kentucky

(Road diet as a effective means of improving mobility and enhancing the multi-modal character of the corridor) The Project: Euclid Avenue is a state maintained minor urban arterial that runs along the northern boundary of the University of Kentucky campus. The purpose of this project was improvement of mobility needs of the area due to congestion at some intersections along the corridor. The route serves local trafc and regional commuters, with mixed land uses of retail and housing. The project involved resurfacing and restriping an existing 4-lane road into a 3-lane road with bicycle lanes. Location: Lexington, Kentucky Context Setting: Urban Road Classication: Urban Arterial Stakeholders: Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government (LFUCG), City Council and community members The Process: The initial plan to convert Kentucky Avenue from an existing 4-lane road to a 5-lane section without acquiring additional right-of-way met with signicant opposition from the public. An alternative plan that took into consideration pedestrian and bicyclist needs featured a 3-lane road with bicycle lanes along the entire corridor. Use of a single corridor for all modes of transportation,(i.e., passenger cars, public transportation, bicyclists, and pedestrians) was the context sensitive solution. In order to promote proper use of bicycle lanes, an education campaign was launched as part of the project. Lessons Learned: The exibility and open mindedness of the KyTC to consider alternative designs and implement concepts suggested by the public indicated to the public that their opinion is valued and is seriously considered and the level of trust increased. LFUCGs support to develop a pedestrian and bicycle-friendly corridor was essential to the projects success The road diet concept has worked very well by reducing speeds without increasing trafc congestion. The Case Study for this project can be found online at: http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_ studies/kentucky_euclid/resources/kentucky_euclid_pdf/

New Jersey Future In Transportation Project: Route 31 in Hunterdon County, New Jersey
(A case study that demonstrates the benets of building local network solutions to congestion and capacity problems) The Project: Congestion on Route 31 in the Raritan Township / Flemington Borough area has been a growing concern for area residents, business owners and elected ofcials. Since 1987, NJDOT has studied a number of alternatives that included adding turn lanes at various intersections, grade-separating the Flemington circle and the Flemington Bypass a 4 laned limited access highway from Route 202 to Route 31. Location: Raritan Township / Flemington Borough in Hunterdon County, NJ Context Setting: Suburban and Historic Road Classication: New Jersey State Route Stakeholders: NJDOT, Flemington Borough, Raritan Township, Hunterdon County, Flemington Raritan Business Association, FHWA The Process: Instead of trying to solve congestion on Route 31 by building a bypass, the New Jersey Department of Transportation (NJDOT) ofcials along with a team of consultants explored the possibility of enhancing the areas transportation network. In doing so, they engaged stakeholders and local residents in a discussion about the existing transportation network and the future land use aspirations. At the same time, as local residents became aware of their cultural resources, the NJDOT, the consulting teams and the local stakeholders came up with the South Branch Parkway Framework Plan through a multi-day charrette process. The new system envisioned in this framework plan will include the South Branch Parkway and an enhanced street network to encourage pedestrian and bicycle movement throughout the area and increase connectivity. More direct routes between areas of housing, employment, and retail will also be provided. This process gave the residents a better way to relieve trafc while enhancing the areas transportation network and preserving its natural, historic, and cultural resources. Lessons Learned: An important element of this process was the willingness of local residents and engineers to move away from the standard road widening or the limited-access highway type approach. It was also imporant for NJDOT to understand the wins for all the concerned stakeholders and providing them with solutions that could help them get access to their properties and develop solutions that built into enhancing connectivity for local trips within the town.
New Jersey Route 31 Land Use & Transportation Framework Plan

3.0 The Int e r- re l a t i o n s h ip b etw ee n Tra n s p o r ta t ion, L and U s e and D e s ign
The concepts of transportation, land use, and design are interrelated. Understanding this interaction is necessary to evaluate impacts and potential solutions to trafc congestion and environmental degradation that often accompany growth. Furthermore, recognition of this interaction allows policy makers, developers, and citizens to evaluate transportation investments in terms of broader community goals. Highway systems of the past half-century were planned primarily in reaction to urban growth. Recently, it has become standard practice to allocate and shape growth with an understanding of the implications on travel and transportation infrastructure. Likewise, regional transportation plans are now being generated to help direct growth to optimal target areas. This is a proactive approach to transportation and land use planning, and represents the best available method of preserving Savannah and Chatham Countys rich context and the natural environment while maintaining an efcient circulation system. Chatham County Savannahs year 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan outlines the transportation vision for the region. This context sensitive design manual suppoprts the goals and objectives of the plan and intends to further ideals pertaining to livable transportation. This section provides a brief introduction to transportation terminology and concepts, and describes the direct relationships between transportation, land use, and design. Important denitions and concepts related to the subjects of transportation, land use, and design are introduced. Each concept is integral to understanding how transportation, land use, and design principles interact with one another. These ideas are then applied to the four major corridor types present in Chatham County. General recommendations are made regarding how best to ensure optimal integration of these principles for future transportation investments, given various contextual and design parameters.

Tr a nspor ta tion, La nd Use a nd D e s ig n
Transp o r t a t i o n
Although the scope of the eld of transportation planning is large, several distinct terms and concepts are critical to understanding the role of transportation in regional planning. These concepts are described below, beginning with basic denitions and progressing to emerging trends and practices.
The Corridor
The corridor is the basic element of transportation planning. Most transportation projects are undertaken on a corridor basis. In essence, a corridor is the general path of travel between two endpoints. The endpoints are usually represented by major activity centers (central business districts, shopping districts, employment centers, etc.), political boundaries (municipal boundaries), natural features (rivers, ocean, etc.), or intersections of major transportation facilities. Along the length of the corridor between these endpoints, there are additional employment areas, shopping centers, residential developments, and institutional uses, each of which generates their own share of travel on the corridor. Corridors are generally composed of a single roadway or several parallel transportation facilities. Each roadway itself is dened primarily by its cartway and right-of-way. The cartway is the paved surface of the roadway, while the right-of-way is the legal boundary of the roadway facility. Within the right-of-way are the cartway, sidewalks, landscaping, drainage facilities, utilities, street lamps, and, often, a reserve area for the future expansion of the cartway.
It is important to understand that whereas problem denition for transportation projects is often done on a corridor basis, solutions could lie in either of three areas On the corridor or the right-of-way itself where the range of options could include adding or removing lanes, signals, etc. or doing what it takes to improve the travel conditions on the corridor. The solutions could be nested in modifying the edges of the corridor (the sensory realm), through land use changes, access management and controls, street edge treatments and design. Solutions that are outside the immediate context of the corridor like enhancements or the creation of parallel corridors and developing street networks that can eventually help alleviate conditions on the main corridor.
Three approaches to transportation corridor projects
Begin Study Area
End Study Area
Study area denition and solutions within the dened study area
Corridor solutions nested in Land Use decisions
Corridor solutions outside the immediate study area - network development and land use restucturing

10
Origins and Destinations

Every corridor serves local, regional, and through trafc, the specic proportions of which are determined by the distribution of origins and destinations in and around the corridor. An origin represents a residential use that can be thought of as a home-base for all trips. In other words, origins are locations, usually coinciding with houses, apartments, and condominiums, where most people begin and end their days. Hotels and campgrounds also qualify as origins because they represent additional locations where people reside, at least on a temporary basis. Destinations are places that attract people during the course of a day, such as ofces, shops, restaurants, entertainment venues, cultural and recreational facilities, and schools. Up until the mid-twentieth century, most destinations were clustered in central areas so as to be accessible to the greatest number of people by requiring the least amount of total travel. As we evolved into a fully-mobile society, however, destinations have become scattered and hence reliant on a more dispersed transportation network.
Trip Types
There are three types of trips that characterize all corridors: internal trips, external trips, and internal/external trips. These trip types are dened by their interaction with the boundaries of the study area, a specied portion of a town or region which typically includes all or part of the target corridor. Internal: Internal trips have both their origins and destinations within the study area. In other words, an internal trip is one that is entirely contained within the study area and never crosses its boundaries. These are sometimes referred to as local trips.
External: External trips are the opposite of internal trips. In other words, neither the origin nor the destination of an external trip is contained within the study area. As a result, external trips are simply passing through the study area, generally on main thoroughfares. These are sometimes referred to as either through trips or external trips.
Internal/External: The third category of trips has either its origin or destination, but not both, within the study area. For example, a resident of a neighboring county (not in the study area) who travels to an ofce complex within the study area engages in an internal/external trip. Likewise, a resident of a subdivision within the study area who travels to an entertainment destination across town engages in an internal/external trip.
Origin - single family residential areas and neighborhoods
Destination - Town Centers

11
Mode Split
Mode split addresses the degree to which different modes of travel, that is, automobiles, transit, bicycles, and walking, are used to make trips. In corridors where environmental concerns and trafc congestion are signicant, a common goal is often to adjust the mode split in favor of transit, bicycles, and walking. The strategy for achieving this entails increasing the attractiveness of alternate modes (non automobile), by increasing transit service, creating bicycle lanes, completing the sidewalk network, or decreasing the attractiveness of driving, usually by raising parking fees or tolls. The most appropriate method of adjusting mode split is best selected by rst determining the targeted trip type. For internal trips of a local nature, such as that between stores in a commercial area, enhancements to sidewalk facilities or improvements to pedestrian crossings can succeed in removing very short trips from the roadways. For longer internal trips, such as those between two non-adjacent major destinations within the same study area, small transit shuttles or circulators would be more appropriate. Bicycle lanes often capture trips between home and local commercial establishments, i.e., distances that are too far to walk but that do not really require a car. For internal/external and external trips, longer-distance transit services are often employed such as buses, light rail systems, or other forms of transit service.
Capacity
Capacity is a measure of the total number of elements (vehicles or people) that can be carried by a certain transportation mode in a given period of time. This measure is mostly used when referring to automobiles or transit, though it is also relevant with regards to heavily-used multi-use trails and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. Vehicular capacity has two main categories: roadway capacity and parking capacity. Roadway capacity is typically the largest constraint of a regional transportation system, as the demand for automobile travel has quickly outstripped the available capacity on American roadways. While building more and more roadway capacity has been the preferred solution to trafc congestion for several decades now, limited overall available space, together with community concerns, now often require the exploration of alternatives to the expansion of roadway capacity. Shifting the mode split, getting people out of cars, to free capacity rather than creating capacity is the most common of these alternative methods. Parking capacity is an additional constraint because it addresses the number of vehicles that can be accommodated at the destination. Parking capacity limitations can be addressed in the same ways as roadway capacity, i.e., expansion or mode shift. Expansion deals with the provision of additional parking spaces, whether in a garage, on a lot, and/or along the street. Mode shifting measures, such as sidewalk and bicycle lane improvements, reduce the need for parking spaces.
Roadway Widening - Increasing roadway capacity
Sidewalk improvements - can free roadway capacity
On street parking - One component of total capacity

12
Vehicular Level-of-Service
Vehicular roadway capacity, the most common measure of roadway conditions, is a key factor in determining roadway level of service. The level of service of a roadway is an assessment of the relationship between total roadway capacity and the volume of vehicles using the roadway at a given time, usually the peak morning and evening rush hours. Level of service is measured on a scale of A through F, with A being the best (unconstrained) condition and F being the worst (constrained) condition. In urban areas, level of service D is often regarded as the minimum acceptable vehicular level of service. In lightly developed fringe and rural areas, level of service D often serves as the minimum standard, but LOS C is strived for. Vehicular level-of-service focuses on the comfort of vehicular travel on a corridor. Often, a good vehicular level-of-service is inversely related to the quality of travel for non-motorized travel. An analysis focused solely on vehicular level-of-service tends to produce investments that cater solely to vehicular travel, such as widening and grade separation. Broadening the tools of analysis to include other modes is one important step towards developing a multi-modal transportation network.
Speed vs. Capacity

Contrary to common intuition, an increase in speed does not necessarily dictate an increase in capacity or an improvement in level of service. Similarly, a decrease in speed does not dictate a decrease in capacity. This is explained by the following truths about vehicular travel ow: a. The Highway Capacity Manual produced by the Transportation Research Board postulates that, under most circumstances, the hourly ow of vehicles per lane is maximized at a speed of 25-30 MPH. At higher speeds, the number of vehicles that can be carried in a lane per hour goes down, due to the natural inclination of motorists to increase spacing between vehicles which off sets the potential capacity advantages of higher speeds. b. For multi-lane roads, higher speeds dictate a larger gradient in the different ow speeds per lane. This gradient leads to many weaving movements as motorists struggle to nd the fastest lane, decreasing the overall capacity of the roadway. The more lanes there are, the greater the effect of weaving on capacity per lane. c. Intersections are the main determinants of capacity and level-of-service. Implementing coordinated signal systems and maintaining steady ows are simpler to accomplish at lower rather than higher speeds.
Vehicular Level of Service

LOS A - Free Flow: Users unaffected by others in the trafc system. LOS B - Stable Flow: Slight decline in the freedom to maneuver from LOS A. LOS C - Stable Flow: Operation of the vehicle becomes signicantly affected by the interaction of others in the trafc system. LOS D - Approaching Unstable Flow: High volumes of trafc, speeds adversely affected, and freedom to maneuver is severely restricted. LOS E - Unstable Flow: Operating conditions are at, or very near capacity. All speeds are low and the freedom to maneuver is extremely impaired. LOS F - Exceeding Capacity Point at which arrival ows exceed discharge ows causing queuing delays. Stoppages may occur for long periods of time because of the downstream congestion. Travel times are also substantially increased.

13
Trafc Calming
Given that reductions in vehicular speed do not necessarily dictate lower capacities, trafc-calming programs are becoming very commonplace as a means to re-create safe, slow neighborhood and commercial streets. Generally, the purpose of trafc calming is to control the speed of trafc while not restricting mobility. Trafc calming is a comprehensive set of design elements that reinforce the appropriate driving behavior. The appropriate trafc calming techniques and roadway design speed are dependent on the context. Generally, trafc calming techniques generally fall into three categories: narrowing the street; deecting the vehicle path vertically; and deecting the vehicle path horizontally. In addition to these changes to the cartway, changes to the pedestrian realm and to the visual eld can also slow drives. Visual Friction, elements that create a sense of enclosure or elements that break up views, serve to slow drivers. Landscaping and building placement can be used in conjunction with, or independent of, physical changes to the cartway to slow travel speeds. The purpose of trafc calming is to retrot existing streets for slower trafc speeds. Where new streets are to be built, however, they can be planned for slow speeds at the outset. The general principles are the same as for trafc calming, with an emphasis on narrow street widths. The handbook - Streets and Sidewalks, People and Cars: The Citizens Guide to Trafc Calming is written specically for residents who want to create safer neighborhood streets. This hands-on guide written by Dan Burden and published by Walkable Communities, Inc. gives citizens the tools they need to evaluate and improve the safety of their neighborhood residential and commercial streets (http://www.walkable.org/order.htm)
Cross-Access Connections Cross-access connections allow motorists to complete short trips between adjacent uses without having to return to the primary arterial. Connections are provided through aisles and alleys that connect adjacent parcels and parking lots to one another. By minimizing the number of vehicles turning off and onto the arterial, through trafc is able to ow in a more efcient manner. In addition, cross-access connections that are coordinated and well planned may begin to form a second parallel roadway.
Access Management
Access management is one of the tools recommended in this handbook to manage transportation and land use. Access management is dened as a process that provides or manages access between development and surrounding roadways. As development occurs along highly traveled commercial roadways, certain policies and guidelines need to be in place to manage access within the corridor. Shared Driveways The concept of shared driveways encourages access along the side street for corner parcels and joint access driveways when side street access is not available.
Reverse Frontage Road Reverse frontage road provides cross access easements in the rear of the parcels, creating a second parallel roadway. Wherever possible, access is provided from the side street instead of the primary arterial. By encouraging driveway access from the side street, the number of friction points along the primary arterial is drastically reduced.

14
Land U se
Land use refers to the types of activities that take place within a given area. Land use controls are a major part of most city and county development codes. The distribution of land uses inuences the number of trips made, the length of trips, and the mode of travel. The following are specic types of land uses that have varying effects on the transportation system.
Commercial
Commercial districts contain stores, restaurants, ofces, banks, and other places of business. Each of these uses generates a different number of trips per day (or per peak period), so the total number of trips attracted to the district depends on the specic allotment of uses at the site. Commercial districts mainly contain destinations.
Industrial
Industrial districts also consist almost exclusively of employment-based destinations. Notable exceptions are restaurant/retail establishments located in industrial districts specically to serve the large concentration of employment and undesirable businesses (i.e., adult entertainment establishments) which are often limited to industrial zones.
Residential
Residential land uses refer to homes, apartments, condominiums, townhouses, and sometimes, hotels. In other words, residential districts usually contain many trip origins within their boundaries, and few, if any, destinations. Trip generation refers to the number of times that people arrive at and leave from certain locations during the course of a specic time period. In terms of residential development, a subdivision of single family homes will generate more trips than a small cluster of apartment buildings-given the same number of living units, due to the larger family size (and hence more trip needs) of larger living spaces. For purely residential districts, very few internal trips are observed, as almost all destinations are located outside the district.
Other
Other land uses include institutional uses, civic uses, recreational uses (i.e., parks and ballelds), and conservation areas. These are less prevalent than residential, commercial, and industrial districts, and are often mixed in with these other uses. For example, schools (institutional) are often intermingled with residential areas, while government buildings (civic) are often located in central business districts. Many recreational areas border or are integrated with commercial or residential districts, but conservation areas are, in general, spatially separate from the main areas of activity because of their large sizes and characteristic natural qualities.

15
Mixed-Use
Mixed-use areas are exactly what the name implies, areas where two or more major types of uses are intermingled with each other. The most common mixed-use district contains both residential and commercial development, since these are generally very compatible uses. In fact, up until the onset of zoning codes in the early twentieth century, most cities developed in this manner, as is evident in older North American cities such as New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and New Orleans. Most small towns also developed in this manner, as limited transportation systems dictated that commercial and residential development needed to be as close together as possible. Nearly all newer cities are now actively encouraging downtown residential development to create mixed-use environments that are freer from crimes often associated with lack of people on the sidewalks after the close of the business day. Today, mixed-use development is also very prevalent in smaller-scale projects such as new town centers, which generally contain a mixture of ofce, retail, and residential uses. The most common conguration of mixed-use buildings consists of retail on the ground oor and ofces and apartments above. The transportation benets of this type of development are numerous and are based generally on the drastic reduction of trip distance between origins and destinations, which are mixed together rather than spread apart in separate designated districts.
River Streets mixed use development (above) and City Market (left) are attractions for residents and visitors

16
Design
Design is also integral to travel choice within a corridor. Design consists of specic elds such as urban design, town design, and site design, but their general principles and their effects on transportation are consistent. While there are many design elements and concepts that are involved in the creation of buildings and development sites, the specic elements that are described below have direct effects on transportation.
Setback
Setback is another design element that has signicant implications for travel behavior. Large setbacks are often indicative of automobile-scale development, as street-front space is reserved for parking and/or landscaping. Such large setbacks are inconvenient for pedestrians, since the total walking distance between buildings increases as setbacks increase. In pedestrian-scale developments, there are usually no (or very small) setbacks, with each building right up to the sidewalk. This is the optimal condition for pedestrians because the distance between the storefronts and the main walking corridor is minimized. In instances where strip corridors are redeveloped as pedestrian-oriented districts, new buildings are often constructed in a manner that creates a desirable consistent street frontage by minimizing setback.
Scale
Scale refers to the size and orientation of buildings with respect to their users. More useful than the terms large-scale and small-scale are the parallel terms automobile-scale and pedestrian scale. Automobile-scale refers to the condition where buildings are sized and oriented in a manner that caters to passing motorists. Such buildings are generally large and loosely spaced. While appropriate for motorists viewing them at speeds of 30-50 MPH, they create an unpleasant environment for people on foot moving at much slower speeds. Pedestrian-scale refers to development that is built to be viewed and accessed by people traveling at very low speeds, i.e., on foot. Generally, buildings are small (or have varied facades) and close together, meaning that the pedestrians view is constantly changing. Moreover, pedestrian-scale development is more clustered than automobile-scale development, so more buildings are accessible within a given walking distance.
Evolution of the pedestrian friendly street-side retail
The rst pedestrian friendly buildings are stepping stones in a street still dominated by vehicles. The walking experience improves, owing to the occassional oasis along the sidewalk.
More pedestrian-friendly development begins to form a continuous street front. Walking becomes interesting. x/3 < Height < x/2
Finally a solid pedestrian-friendly zone evolves. People come just to walk and enjoy the scene. This is helpful for businesses as increase in foot trafc helps increase in sales.
Width (x)
The pedestrian scale height to width ratio falls between 1:3 and 1:2 as measured from the building fronts or the wall of trees

17
Primary I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h ip s : Tra n s p o rtatio n an d L and U s e
Travel choice is very much inuenced by both land use and design, each of which has implications for overall trafc, mode split, and parking requirements. The following sections assess the relationships between transportation and land use and between transportation and design.
Transportation and Land Use

The organization and distribution of land uses are the primary determinants of travel patterns. While a reactive transportation plan simply accepts the distribution of origins and destinations as given and directs transportation investment to serve them, a proactive transportation plan examines the effects of better organizing these origins and destinations. The desired result is that the optimum arrangement of land uses can reduce the demand for scarce transportation resources. Impacts on Trafc and Travel While the reorganization of origins and destinations can help reduce overall trip length, especially in total mixeduse environments, they also have very direct implications on the physical form of the roadway system. When land uses are functionally and physically separated, there is still a need for travel between them. Typically, these separate land uses are connected via major thoroughfares with a limited number of interconnected supporting roadways. In the worst-case scenario, all local travelers must use the same roadway to shuttle between adjacent land uses as regional travelers use to travel to, through, and out of the study area. This creates a large degree of trafc friction along the corridor and usually leads to the need to widen the roadway. In other words, all trips, local and regional, are assigned to the main roadway. The usual result of this type of trip assignment is a system of wide, heavily traveled main roadways feeding into local roadways that are lightly utilized. Alternatively, consider the example of a mix of uses organized along a dense, interconnected local street network. The presence of multiple route options between different uses prevents any one thoroughfare from shouldering an unreasonable burden. Local trips are distributed along the roadway network, leaving the main regional thoroughfare to carry external and internal/external trips, without the trafc friction otherwise caused by short internal trips. The key element of these two scenarios is the organization of land use. The spreading and isolation of different land uses requires signicant main roadway capacity to serve local and regional trips alike. Conversely, the tightening and mixing of land uses increases the nancial feasibility of connecting the different uses by multiple routes, and reduces the overall distances that need to be traveled to shuttle between them.
Top:
Sparse road network Separation of uses
Top:
Promotes vehicular travel Long trip lengths Trips concentrated on one major roadway
Bottom:
Roadway network with multiple connections Proximity of uses Public spaces link community
Bottom:
Promotes walking and biking Shorter trip lengths Dispersion of trips on multiple roadways
Same Lane Miles
Greater Capacity
Dense Network
Benets of the network
Sparse Heirarchy

18
Impacts on Mode Split The organization of land use also has considerable implications on mode split. When different land uses are separated and widely distributed, the private automobile is by far the most efcient means of transportation available to travelers. For instance, few people walk due to the fact that origins and destinations are so widespread. Bicycling is a viable option but would entail long trips. Efcient transit service is difcult because land uses, in this scenario, are not organized around natural activity centers or a consistent pedestrian framework. On the other hand, when land uses are mixed and tightly woven, mode split shifts toward walking, biking, and transit. Walking and biking become feasible options because many origins and destinations are within close proximity of one another. This leads to the creation of a consistent pedestrian and bicycle framework, generating an identiable activity center and, hence, a focal point for transit. Impacts on Parking When land uses are separated physically and functionally, each use requires its own dedicated parking supply. In other words, there is no opportunity for shared parking because the walk between isolated uses is generally large and/or non-enticing. Conversely, when different land uses are in close proximity to one another, their varying parking demand proles lead to shared parking opportunities. For example, imagine that the peak parking period for a certain large church is Sunday morning. An adjacent ofce development has a peak parking period of roughly 8 AM to 5 PM Monday through Friday, while a nearby cinema complex experiences its peaks on evenings and weekends. From these three uses as examples, it is evident that proper management of a shared parking resource can reduce the total number of spaces needed, provided that the three uses are in close proximity and connected by attractive pedestrian facilities. In other words, since each of the three uses would ll up parking spaces at different times, a wellmanaged, well-located shared parking resource would be able to handle each uses peak and eliminate the need for three separate, often empty, parking supplies. In instances where different land uses are isolated and widely-separated, however, the temporal differences between peak periods are irrelevant. In such cases, each specic use would have to maintain its own dedicated parking supply that is empty much of the time. There is therefore an inherent cost savings for developers of mixeduse areas, as they can take advantage of parking demands that are out of phase to build and maintain fewer overall parking spaces.
Distributed singular land uses - sprawl like pattern and the dependence on the automobile A mix of uses, pedestrian activity and potential for transit reduces local trips and vehicular speeds
Above: SIngle use parking inefcient use of land and does not lend character to the street Right: Efcient parking solutions like on-street parking and shared parking facilities make better use of available resources

19
Primary I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h ip s : Tra n s p o rtatio n an d D e s ign
The transportation implications of design are very similar in magnitude to those of land use. In particular, scale and setback have considerable effects on travel patterns, mode split, and parking. Trafc and Travel The travel implications of design are threefold: a. The compactness associated with smaller scales implies that origins and destinations are closer together, shortening overall trip lengths. b. Convenient pedestrian connections between origins and destinations reduce the total number of automobile trips by shifting the mode split. c. Smaller scales have the desirable side effect of decreasing vehicular speeds and hence reinforcing pedestrian oriented areas as pleasant walking environments. A pedestrian-scale rather than automobilescale arrangement of storefronts leads to motorists perception that buildings are passing by more rapidly, often leading to a reduction in speed. So the overall effect of pedestrian-scale design on travel patterns is that trafc is lighter, slower, and more acceptable for areas of high pedestrian and bicycle activity. Mode Split Pedestrian-scale design is targeted at exactly what its name implies, pedestrians. For a given amount of development, an increase in pedestrian travel implies a decrease in automobile travel. Because the very objective of designing at a pedestrian scale is to attract pedestrians, such design has very signicant trafc benets. Pedestrian-scale design also increases the mode share of transit. The reason for this is that every transit rider is a pedestrian at the beginning and end of his trip. Therefore, improvements to the pedestrian environment at these locations will increase the attractiveness of using transit. Parking The creation of a good pedestrian environment can generate a park-once environment, meaning that patrons to local establishments have the propensity to park once and subsequently walk between all their destinations. The impacts on overall parking requirements are profound. In park-once districts, each specic use does not need its own separate parking supply because it is accepted that a large portion of the patron base is made up of walk-up (as opposed to drive-up) customers. For example, imagine a trip chain that includes a visit to the drug store, a restaurant, and the post ofce. In the model where land uses are widely separated, three separate parking spaces are needed to accommodate this single person because the walk between the drug store, restaurant, and post ofce is lengthy and/or unpleasant. In contrast, in a park-once district, only a single parking space is needed to serve this particular customer.
Walk up retail and other uses promotes the park once idea An example of an unattractive pedestrian-hostile urban highway Pedestrian friendly arterial with store-fronts and on-street parking
Isolated convenience store on a highway lends itself hostage to automobile users

20
4.0 Int e nt o f t he Con tex t S e n s itiv e D e s ig n Gu ide line s
Text
Regional Visioning
Neighborhood Corridor Studies
Context S ensitive De sign Ma nua l

Chatham County -Savannah Metropolitan Planning
Inclusive Design Process

I nte nt of the Conte xt Se nsitive De sign Gu id e lin e s
21
5.0 Co nt e x t Ty pe s i n C h a th a m C o u n ty - S a v a n n ah
In the context sensitive design workshop conducted at the Chatham County Savannah MPC in August 2006, the steering committee identied a possible range of contexts that this design manual needs to address. Whereas the contexts identied in this manual are not set in stone, they help to provide a guide to local ofcials, designers and elected representatives in understanding the unique characteristics of each area. Ideally, as a project is identied context denition by itself needs to be a process where some of the most crucial characteristics are highlighted and recognized by the community in understanding the unique characteristics of each area. Ideally, as a project is identied context denition by itself needs to be a process where some of the most crucial characteristics are highlighted and recognized by the community. Some of the criteria for identifying the contexts for this manual were the historicity of the place, its built character as reected by the general built form, architecture and built pattern, the street network and blocks pattern, built density and street character and character of the natural environment. Based on this understanding of Chatham County and the city of Savannah, the following contexts were identied
Landmark Historic District The landmark historic district is a unique place within Savannah that is of vital importance on account of the communitys vacation-travel industry, tourism and cultural reections. The district has a unique urban setting which includes architecturally signicant buildings that relate to a square or a park or an area whose design has been consciously preserved according to a xed plan based on economic, cultural, historical or architectural motives. When transportation facilities interface with such a contextually charged place, the primary role of the facility - to move automobiles needs to be responsive to all the other roles that the context embodies. The road thus becomes a facilitator and plays a support function for all activities other than merely the through movement of the automobile. Neighborhood Historic District The neighborhood historic district context is comprised of mostly residential neighborhoods of Savannah with traditional development patterns developed between 1890 and 1930. Reminiscent of the streetcar and the early automobile era, these neighborhoods are characterized by medium to large lot residential land uses with corner stores, tree canopies on edges of streets or in medians. Rectangular blocks with a well dened street grid are key characteristics of this context type. Transportation projects developed as a part of this context need to recognize the residential interface and street character. Trafc calmed streets, on-street parking, amenities for bicyclists and pedestrians, and reinforcement of the unique tree canopy will all likely be key elements of streets built or retrotted within this context type. Traditional Neighborhood This context intends to identify some of the very early suburbs of Savannah that were planned to include varying sizes and types of houses, ranging from magnicent brick mansions to relatively small craftsmen style cottages. Gordonston Park perhaps is a good example of such a context. Whereas the rectilinear street grid may or may not be as well dened as in the Landmark historic or the Neighborhood historic districts, local street networks are maintained through these neighborhoods. Transportation projects developed as a part of this context need to recognize the residential interface and street character. Trafc calmed streets, on-street parking, amenities for bicyclists and pedestrians, and reinforcement of the unique tree canopy will all likely be key elements of streets built or retrotted within this context type.

Conte xt Type s in Cha tha m County - Sa v a n n a h
22
Village Center The village center context has been developed to demonstrate an idea of how a future suburban community can possibly evolve. In keeping with the ideals of smart growth, the village center is the hub of a suburban community. Often comprising of the main street the village center is the suburban equivalent of a main street in Downtown Savannah with street fronting mixed use development, pedestrian amenities and facilities that provide and opportunity for other modes of transport to safely interact with automobiles on the roadway facility.
Conserved or Scenic Corridors Savannahs unique character is reected through its canopy roads, palm lines causeways, historic road segments, scenic vistas and existing community gateways. The Chatham County Savannah MPO has identied these in their Long Range Transportation Plan. The plan recognizes the need to set aside funds for transportation amenities for these corridors to address the issues of treatments that are context sensitive and could likely include pedestrian amenities, bicycle facilities, restoration of tree canopy etc. The plan also recognizes that transportation improvements to these corridors will be limited to transportation management strategies to avoid impacts to tree canopies and other historic resources.
Suburban Communities Suburban communities are characterized primarily by low density and often single family residential neighborhoods. Shopping centers, malls and business parks also are a part of this context type. But, perhaps the key identifying characteristics are the distinctly lower built density than what is seen in all the preceding contexts - wide roads and multilane highways that carry the bulk of trafc volume because of a distinct absence of a connected street network and the presence of large parking lots. Poor walkability compounded by a lack of pedestrian safety make these places key candidates for change through a variety of transportation solutions that would likely integrate land use and built form changes along with enhancements of street network resulting in better connectivity. Rural or Undeveloped Corridors Most often found outside city limits, the rural or undeveloped corridor context could represent farmland and undeveloped natural terrain. Arterials and collectors play an important role in this context and if properly planned, can structure either potential future development or facilitate regional connectivity without sacricing the character of the rural setting. When built, these corridors are likely to form barriers within the rural context because of higher speeds and possibly wider roadway cross sections. Providing for off line bike-ped trails where appropriate and safe crossings across these rural highways is important is maintaining connectivity for other modes.
Gated Communities Gated communities are characterized by predominantly residential land uses. The controlled access feature of these communities limits local connectivity and increases the pressure on arterials and collectors that service them. Controlled access and the desire to keep through trafc out of these communities gives rise to neighborhood road safety issues. These include speeding on local neighborhood roads and trafc signal and sign violations, etc. that directly impact safety for pedestrians, bikes and other modes. Transportation projects for these areas need to address two key areas - the importance of local connectivity and neighborhood safety through trafc calming techniques.

Conte xt Type s in Cha tha m County - Sa v a n n a h
23
6.0 Co nt e x t B a se d R o a d w a y F u n ctio n a l C la s s ifi c ation Sys te m
The transportation, land use, and design characteristics of a corridor will differ according to the context of the surrounding environment. Whereas Chatham County currently expresses its road functional classication by twelve categories broken up into mainly urban and rural roadways, this section uses the four key roadway functional classes from that list. These four basic types of roads the arterials, major collectors, minor collectors and local roads - when paired up with the eight different context types present a range of conditions outlined in the design manual. This section evaluates these in terms of their transportation, land use and design characteristics. Arterials Arterials are designed to move vehicles over long distances and in the true sense are regional corridors. Through time, dispersed single access destinations locate along these facilities designed to provide regional travel. The mixing of local and regional trafc in these corridors, conventionally dictates the need for wide, multilane regional highways. The design guidelines presented in the document for arterial streets will be applied to modications of existing arterial streets or for the building of new ones. To begin to address transportation challenges in urban developed corridors, it is important to examine how the principles described in this chapter can be applied in a retroactive manner to balance the needs of regional and local travels. In the short term, pedestrian conditions and local circulation can be improved through sidewalk enhancements and cross-access, respectively. Intermediate solutions might entail the creation of an alternative street network behind and between properties, so that internal and some internal/external trips can be accommodated without the need for travel on the main regional thoroughfare. In the long term, a rearrangement of uses and structures along the corridor can begin to better approximate a sustainable, mixed-use development pattern. The addition of buildings along the strip, and the complementary establishment of shared parking facilities, can begin to cause certain focal points along the corridor to evolve into pedestrian-oriented districts. When this happens, trafc will become more tame, short trips will take place on foot rather than by car, and natural nodes for a regional transit system will be created. Major and Minor Collectors* Secondary to the arterials, major collectors are key to enhancing connectivity within the region. They provide relatively shorter connections and are often between two arterials. They are classied on the basis of the scale of the facility and the trafc volumes they serve but nevetheless form an important link between neighborhoods and the regional transportation system. Collectors in an urban setting often give a place its character. Hence their design should not only balance the quality of travel for all modes, but should also promote other physical
street elements like trees, sidewalks and pedestrian amenities and built form. The ability of these key transportation facilities to accommodate all of the above eventually elevates them to be called main streets. Main Streets* Main streets are those roadways serving mixed use centers. Mixed use centers often contain one or more public elements, such as civic or recreational activities. The design of main streets should highlight the role of the mixed use center as a focal point for the community. To efciently provide access to the many uses located in mixed use centers, the scale and orientation of buildings should be developed to support a park-once, pedestrian friendly environment Local or Neighborhood Streets The primary role of the neighborhood street as part of the transportation system is access to adjacent uses. In a broader context, neighborhood streets make up a large share of the public space in neighborhoods. Safety is the principal design element on neighborhood streets. Therefore, the roadway design should reinforce slow vehicular travel speeds. Bicycle and Pedestrian Trails To increase the percent of trips made by non-auto modes of travel, it is necessary to insure the safety and comfort of all user types, from novice to experienced. A system of bicycle and pedestrian trails should be developed to connect residential areas to mixed use centers and community amenities. In order to fully realize the potential positive benets of roadway design, land use, and urban design on transportation and environmental preservation, it is essential that each of these subjects be addressed holistically. Roadway design must support the surrounding land uses and inuence desired urban form to achieve a balance between mobility and community building.

Conte xt Ba se d Roa dwa y Func tiona l Cla ssif ic a tio n
24
7.0 D e si g n G ui de l i n e s
Context vs. Functional Classication Matrix
Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector or Main Street Local or Neighborhood Streets
Context Types Functional Classication of Streets Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector or Main Street Local or Neighborhood Streets Landmark Historic District Page 26 Page 32 Page 37 Page 42 Neighborhood Historic District Page 27 Page 33 Page 38 Page 43 Traditional Neighborhoods Page 27 Page 35 Page 38 Page 43 Village Centers Page 28 Page 34 Page 39 Page 44 Suburban Communities Page 29 Page 35 Page 40 Page 45 Gated Communities Page 29 Page 35 Page 40 Page 45 Scenic Corridors Page 30 Page 36 Page 41 N/A Rural or Undeveloped Corridors Page 31 Page 36 Page 41 N/A

De sign Gu id e lin e s
25
C o n t e x t Ty p e :
Functional Classication:
Art eri al
Landma r k Hi st o r i c D is tric t
Lane Limits (number of through lanes) Right Turn Lane Median Lane Width (max) Design Speed Shoulder / Curb & Gutter Bike Lanes On-street Parking Sidewalks
2 No 14 Max with street trees 11 30 mph Curb & Gutter 5 7 10 min with on curb planting; 16 max including amenity zone 400 Canopy trees No Optional 400 max block size Edge of ROW No planting strip
Intersection Spacing (Full intersection) Trees Mid-Block Crossing Trafc Calming Elements Block Size / Intersection Building Placement Planting Strip / Amenity Zone
10-16
11
14
11
10-16

26
Art eri al
N eighb o r h o o d Hi st o r ic D is tric t an d Tra d itio n al Ne ighborhoods
Lane Limits (number of through lanes) Right Turn Lane Median (width, raised / ushed) Lane Width (max) Design Speed Shoulder / Curb & Gutter Bike Lanes On-street Parking Sidewalks Intersection Spacing (Full intersection) Trees Mid-Block Crossing Trafc Calming Elements Block Size / Intersection Building Placement Planting Strip / Amenity Zone
2 No No 11 30 mph Curb & Gutter 5 7 8 (15 max including amenity zone) 800 max (Match with existing Grid) Canopy trees Yes: where blocks exceed 600 Yes To match with existing street grid Edge of ROW No planting strip
Neighborhood Street as above, but without median
Varies
11
14
11
Varies

27
Art eri al
Village C e n t e r
2 No No 11 30 mph Curb & Gutter 5 7 10 (15 max including amenity zone) 660 Street trees* Yes: where blocks exceed 600 Yes 600 max block size 1200 full intersection Edge of ROW No planting strip Amenity Zone *Does not preclude the formation of canopies
10-15
11
11
10-15
*May or may not necessarily fulll canopy tree conditions

28
Art eri al
S uburb a n C o m m u n i t i e s / G ate d C o mmu n itie s
Lane Limits (number of through lanes) Right Turn Lane Median (width, raised / ushed)
4 No: Unless very heavy turning volume Yes: raised median/with left turn lane ushed where applicable @ intersection. 14 maximum 11 45 mph Curb & Gutter or shoulder where development does not face up on the street/road 5 No 6 (where curb & gutter condition) No sidewalk in shoulder condition 800 Where shoulder: informal tree planting Where curb & gutter: street trees Yes: At pedestrian and trail crossing location Vertical and horizontal deection in roadway alignment 1200 max block size 4 planting strip
Varies 8 4 5
Lane Width (max) Design Speed Shoulder / Curb & Gutter
Bike Lanes On-street Parking Sidewalks
Intersection Spacing (Full intersection) Trees (street trees or informal canopy trees) Mid-Block Crossing Trafc Calming Elements Block Size / Intersection Building Placement Planting Strip / Amenity Zone
11
11
14
11
11
5 4
Varies

29
Art eri al
S cenic C o r r i d o r s
2 No: Unless very heavy turning volume No: for 2-lane section. Yes: Grass median 14 wide for 4-lane section 12 50 mph Shoulder 5 to 6 paved (to be used as a bike lane) 5 - 6 or paved shoulder. No sidewalk. Off road trail: min 10 wide where appropriate
Intersection Spacing (Full intersection) Trees Mid-Block Crossing Trafc Calming Elements
Block Size / Intersection Building Placement Planting Strip / Amenity Zone
Canopy trees* Yes: At pedestrian and trail crossing location Vertical and horizontal deection in roadway alignment N/A N/A N/A
Varies
12
12
Varies
*Re-establish or develop canopy tree conditions where appropriate. Develop planting patterns (formal planting or informal tree clumps as appropriate) to enhance view sheds and visibility of scenic corridors

30
Art eri al
Rural o r Un d e v e l o p e d C o rrid o rs
4 No: Unless very heavy turning volume No: for 2-lane section. Yes: Grass median 14 wide for 4-lane section 12 50 mph Shoulder 5 to 6 paved (to be used as a bike lane) 5 - 6 or paved shoulder. No sidewalk. Off road trail: min 10 wide where appropriate
5-6 12 12 14
Intersection Spacing (Full intersection) Trees Mid-Block Crossing Trafc Calming Elements
Block Size / Intersection Building Placement Planting Strip / Amenity Zone
Replace natural tree patterns Yes: At pedestrian and trail crossing location Vertical and horizontal deection in roadway alignment N/A N/A N/A
12
12
5-6

31
M a j or Col l ect or
2 No No 10 30 mph Curb & Gutter 5 7 10 min with on curb planting 400

10-16 7
Canopy trees No Optional 400 Edge of ROW No planting strip
10
10
10-16

32
N eighb o r h o o d Hi st o r ic D is tric t
2 No No 10 30 mph Curb & Gutter 5 7 8 (15 max including amenity zone) 1200 Canopy trees Yes: where blocks exceed 600 Yes 600 max block size Edge of ROW No planting strip
8-15
10
10
8-15

33
Village C e n t e r
2 No No 10 30 mph Curb & Gutter 5 7 8 (15 max including amenity zone) 1200 Street trees* Yes: where blocks exceed 600 Yes 600 max block size Edge of ROW No planting strip *Does not preclude the formation of canopies
8-15
10
10
8-15

34
Traditio n a l Ne i g h b o r h o o d s , S u b u rb a n C o mmu n itie s a nd G a te d C ommunitie s
2 No No 10 30 mph Curb & Gutter 5 7 8 (15 max including amenity zone) 1200
Varies
Street trees* Yes: where blocks exceed 600 Yes 600 max block size Edge of ROW No planting strip
10
14
10
Varies
*Does not preclude the formation of canopies

35
S cenic C o r r i d o r s a n d R u ra l o r U n d e v elo p e d C o rridors
2 No No 11 30 mph Curb & Gutter 5 7 8 (15 max including amenity zone) 1200 Canopy Trees* Yes: where blocks exceed 600 Yes 600 max block size Edge of ROW No planting strip
Varies
11
11
Varies

36
M inor Col l ect or
2 No 10 25 mph Curb & Gutter 5 7 10 min with on curb planting

8-15 7
Canopy trees No Optional Edge of ROW No planting strip
10
10
8-15

37
M inor Col l ect or
N eighb o r h o o d Hi st o r ic D is tric t, Trad itio n al N e ig h borhoods
2 No 10 25 mph Curb & Gutter 5 7 8 min on curb/off curb
Canopy trees Yes: Where blocks exceed 600 Yes Edge of ROW
8-15
10
10
8-15

38
Mai n St reet
Village C e n t e r
2 No 10 25 mph Curb & Gutter 5 7 10 min on curb planting 400 Street trees* Yes: Where blocks exceed 600 Yes Edge of ROW No planting strip
8-15 7 5
10
10
8-15

39
M inor Col l ect or
S uburb a n C o m m u n i t i e s an d G a te d C o mmu n itie s
2 No Yes: raised median - ush at intersections and driveways: 14 max 4 min 10 35 mph Curb & Gutter Yes: (max up to total 6) Yes: (max up to total 8) 6 min if off curb 660 Street trees* Yes: Where blocks exceed 600 Yes
Lane Width (max) Design Speed Shoulder / Curb & Gutter Bike Lanes On-street Parking Sidewalks Intersection Spacing (Full intersection) Trees Mid-Block Crossing Trafc Calming Elements Block Size / Intersection Building Placement Planting Strip / Amenity Zone
10
14
10
4 planting strip

40
M inor Col l ect or
S cenic C o r r i d o r s a n d R u ra l o r U n d e v elo p e d C o rridors
2 No: Unless very heavy turning volume No: for 2 lane section Yes: Median @ intersection 14 max 10 35 mph 5 - 6 stabilized earth shoulders; (not paved) Bikes within the trafc stream or parallel bike-ped trails. No No N/A Canopy Trees* At intersections of bike-ped trail crossings with these roads Vertical and horizontal deection in roadway alignment N/A N/A
Varies
10
10
Varies

41
N e ighborhood St reet or Local St reet
2 No No 10 25 mph Curb and Gutter No 7 Yes: 10 Min with on curb planting N/A
10 7
Canopy trees No Optional N/A N/A
10
10
10

42
N eighb o r h o o d Hi st o r ic D is tric t an d Tra d itio n al Ne ighborhood
2 No No 10 25 mph Curb and Gutter No 7 8 Min (optional on/off curb planting N/A Canopy trees Yes: Where blocks exceed 600 Yes N/A N/A 4 Planting Strip in Traditional Neighborhood
8 7
10
10

43
Village C e n t e r
2 No No 10 25 mph Curb and Gutter No 7 10 Min with on curb planting 660

10
Street Trees* Yes: Where blocks exceed 600 Yes N/A N/A
10
10
10

44
S uburb a n C o m m u n i t y o r G a te d C o mmu n ity
2 No No 10 25 mph Curb and Gutter No 7 8 with on curb planting 6 with off curb planting 800
6 4
Street Trees* Yes: Where blocks exceed 600 Yes N/A N/A 4 Planting Strip or off curb planting
10
10

45
Guidel i n e s f o r De v e l o p in g C an o p y S tree ts
Streets with a tree lined canopy are a unique feature of Savannah. Glorious old oak trees reect the historicity of the place. There have been a number of instances in the past when infrastructure development pressures have forced the removal of trees from Savannahs urban fabric. Whereas, this is to be avoided to the maximum extent possible, in unavoidable circumstances, replacing the removed trees with trees of the same species grown locally, is recommended. Even with earnest tree replacement efforts, the desired results the reestablishment of a tree canopy does not occur because developing one requires the fulllment of key design considerations. Tree form Canopy trees are trees with a spread and a foliage that ideally extends to about eight to ten feet or more from the tree trunk. Also, this foliage needs to be at least eight feet above the pavement surface. That said, the only forms out of the ones in the adjacent graphic that lend themselves to being canopies are trees with rounded, spreading or weeping forms. Trees with fastigate, columnar or pyramidal forms often form excellent screens Tree placements Tree placement is as important as choosing the right tree form. The intent of a tree lined canopy street is to provide structure and enclosure to the street. This can be achieved by spacing trees regularly and in the correct location across the street right-of-way (ROW). Trees spaced too far apart or too wide across the ROW, do not provide enclosure and appear more as free-single trees rather than as a canopy. On the other hand, if placed too close, the lack of space for growth of foliage may prove to be a problem for the development of canopies. A 4 foot planting strip or amenity strip with tree grates with an additional 6-8 foot sidewalk is the minimum needed for canopy trees to ourish. Ideal conditions may call for more space for trees. In any case, it will be critical to follow the local landscape design guidelines for street and canopy tree planting requirements. Tree spacing for street trees (with a caliper of less than 11) usually varies anywhere between 15 and 50 feet and depends on the following factors:
Correct tree form and placement provides side as well as overhead enclosure
Source; Arnold, Henry F. Trees in Urban Design
Tree form is critical to establishing canopy structure

Source: Booth, Norman K. Basic Elements of Landscape
Use trees to provide a structure to the street

Source: Arnold, Henry F. Trees in Urban Design

46
Guidel i n e s f o r De v e l o p in g C an o p y S tree ts
Design speed of the street This is perhaps one of the most critical design components. According to the green book when the 40 mph design speed threshold is breached, automobile safety issues take precedence causing a signicant shift in design parameters. This adversely impacts the development of tree line canopies on streets because of increased spacing between the travel lane and the trees, wider spacing between trees in consideration of sight distance. Tree lined canopy streets are best developed on streets with design speeds of 40 mph or less.
(Refer to Appendix - page A4 for table on tree spacing relationship to design speeds)
45
mph
45
mph
The right type of trees but no canopy effect because of placement limitations due to higher speeds.
35
mph
Low design speeds and the right tree form allow for development of tree lined canopies over the street. Low design speeds allows trees to be placed as close as 18 from the the travel lane.
35
mph

47
Functional Classication: B ic yc le
a nd Pe dest r i an Tr ai l s
Trail Crossing of Freeway

- A grade separated crossing is required at freeways. - This may be accommodated as part of a vehicular crossing by incorporating bicycle lanes and sidewalks or a multi-use trail on a bridge.
Trail Crossing
Trail Crossing of High Volume Roadway
Minimum: width o f t ra il P refe rre d : width of t ra il + 4 f t .
- Maximum ramp: 1:12 A level area 5 feet long must be provided every 30 feet. See ADA regulations for details. - Where signal warrant can be met, pedestrian activated signal should be provided when the pedestrian trail crosses a collector, arterial, or farm-to-market - If no trafc signal is provided, a minimum of 10 foot wide medians should be provided at unsignalized crossings of a multi-lane roadway. The crossing may be angled at 45 degrees towards approach trafc. Refer to MUTCD for details on design of trafc control devices.
Trail Crossing of Low Volume Residential Street

- At roadway crossings, priority should be given to the major movement. - For paths with daily trips exceeding 1,000 users crossing a residential roadway, the vehicles on the roadway could be required to yield or stop at the trail. In such cases, a raised pedestrian crossing should be used to draw attention to the trail crossing. - Refer to MUTCD for details on design of trafc control devices.
Raised Pedestrian Crossing
Source: Florida Bicycle Facilities Planning and Design Handbook
Bikeway
STOP
Bikeway
Roadway Crossing
Offset Bikeways Intersection Treatment Source: Minnesota Bikeway Design Manual

48
Connections to Adjacent Uses Design Principles

- Provide mobility - Serve as recreational pathways - Provide links to natural areas - Facilitate in habitat preservation - Design for specic user types
Tree Preservation
Wherever possible large established trees should be preserved. To preserve a large tree located in the clear zone: - narrow trail, - shift trail, or - locate a railing between the trail and the tree When a trail is located in close proximity to a tree, it may be necessary to provide special treatment to the subgrade to protect the root system of a tree. A clear zone may not be needed on hiking trails.
Design Elements
Required: - Trail - Buffer - Signage - Connections to public and private commercial uses Recommended: - Lighting - Rest areas - Trail head
Trail Head
Trail Head may be incorporated into commercial centers, public buildings, or parks. Features - Parking (paved or unpaved) - Paved handicapped parking space near trail head - Bicycle parking - Trail head sign - Trash receptacles - Information station with map - Restrooms - Chilled drinking fountains - Lighting - Air pump - Vending machine - Play equipment - Pet amenities - Picnic tables - Pavilions Surface Type
Trail
Trail Users Type Pedestrian trail users walkers, hikers, joggers, runners, persons conned to a wheelchair, bird-watchers, nature lovers, picnickers, etc. Nonmotorized travel bicyclist, rollerblades, skaters, skateboarders Pedestrian / Nonmotorized travel
Travel Speeds (MPH)
Longitudinal Slopes (Maximum)
Cross Slopes
Recommended Minimum Tread Width (Two-Way Travel)
Typical Tread Width (Two-Way Travel)
Rest Areas
0 to 5 mph 8% 1% preferred 8 ft. 10 ft. Concrete Space rest areas at appropriate intervals, and include: - Bench, - Shade, and - Paved platform (3 ft wide x 8 ft long). Weather shelters should be provide every 2 miles, and should include: - 2 to 3 benches - Covered shelter, - Paved platform (10 ft wide x 10 ft long).
5 to 20 mph 0-20 mph
8% 8%
1 - 4% 1% preferred
10 ft. 12 ft
14 - 16 ft. 14 ft - 16 ft
Type 3 Asphalt Type 3 Asphalt

49
Trail in Exclusive ROW
Trail Head
Features - Parking (paved or unpaved) - Paved handicapped parking space near trail head - Bicycle parking - Trail head sign - Trash receptacles - Information station with map - Restrooms - Chilled drinking fountains - Lighting - Air pump - Vending machine - Play equipment - Pet amenities - Picnic tables - Pavilions
Design Principles
- Provide mobility - Serve as recreational pathways - Provide links to natural areas - Facilitate in habitat preservation - Design for specic user types - Provide shade
Design Elements
Required: - Trail - Buffer - Signage Recommended: - Rest areas - Connections to adjacent uses - Trail head
Varies
3'-5'
Trail
(see table below)
3'-5'
Clear Zone
20' Min.
15' Min. buffer/ Clear 25'-100' buffer for Zone environmentally sensitive area
Multi-Use Trail in Road ROW - Pedestrian and Nonmotorized Trail
Lighting
May be needed at roadway intersections if trail is used as a commuter transportation corridor.
Rest Areas
See Farm-to-Market corridor for details. 10' Min.
Trail Users Type Hiker Multiuse trail walkers, hikers, joggers, runners, persons conned to a wheelchair, bird-watchers, nature lovers, picnickers, bicyclist, rollerbladers, skateboarders, mountain bikers Horseback rider Multiuse trail with horseback rider
Travel Speeds (MPH) 0 to 5 mph 0 to 20 mph
Longitudinal Slopes (Maximum) No Restriction 8%
Cross Slopes 4% max. 1% preferred
Minimum Tread Width (Two-Way Travel) 6 ft. 12 ft. (10 ft. limit ROW)
Clearing and Grubbing Width (Min) 10 ft. 18 ft.
Selective Thining Width (Min) 20 ft. 28 ft.
Clearning Height (Min) 8 ft. 10 ft.
Space rest areas at appropriate intervals, and include: - Bench, - Shade, and - Paved platform (3 ft wide x 8 ft long). Weather shelters should be provide every 2 miles, and should include: - 2 to 3 benches - Covered shelter, - Paved platform (10 ft wide x 10 ft long).
5 to 15 mph 0 to 15 mph
10% 8%
4% max 1% preferred
4 ft. 10 ft. (paved) 4 ft. (unpaved)
8 ft. 25 ft.
20 ft. 35 ft.
12 ft. 12 ft.

50
8.0 The P ro c e ss f o r C o n te x t S e n s itiv e S o lu tio n s
Elements of the Process

1. Big and Small Plans One of the biggest challenges in planning for a region is the responsibility to account for regional needs (such as moving people over long distances or accommodating major new developments), while respecting the integrity of the neighborhoods that make up a city. Because of this dichotomy, no single planning process can possibly do an effective job of putting the pieces together in a way that will make the community a better place in the long run. At the end of the day, however, making Savannah and Chatham County a better plan is exactly what we must achieve. The way to accomplish this is to take a series of steps, all with different goals, that add up to a plan for the region and its neighborhoods. That set of steps should include: Regional Visioning Neighborhood and Corridor Studies An Inclusive Design Process 2. Framework - In any good planning process the rst step that must be undertaken is to establish a framework for decision making during the process. This means deciding things like what evaluation criteria should be considered, what collaborators should be consulted, who will be the decision makers, etc. The establishment of a framework applies to both large regional planning processes, and smaller neighborhoodfocused processes. The elements to be considered in the framework might include the following: Evaluation Criteria Whether the subject of the planning study is the region, a neighborhood or a corridor, it is important to establish the ultimate goals to be achieved. Is the primary goal to move cars faster over a long distance? This may be an appropriate goal, for example, on a limited access facility such as Truman Parkway. If, however, a broader set of goals are appropriate, this should be established at the outset; preferably through a public process. Is preservation of an areas character important? Revitalization of land use? Safety of bicyclists and pedestrians? If these or other criteria are important, they should be considered appropriately as decisions are made regarding the right transportation projects. Inordinately weighting mobility criteria such as vehicle speed or level of service can be and has been highly detrimental to the character and livability of Savannahs communities. Stakeholders Identifying and involving the right stakeholders at the outset can not only make project implementation faster and easier; it can often lead to the identication of alternatives that would not otherwise have been considered. Identication of Alternatives The identication and fair evaluation of a full set of alternatives is the most often neglected step in the process. This is ironic, since it is probably the step that has the most potential to make a difference. Instead of coming to a conclusion early in the process (e.g., we are widening this road from two to four lanes) and trying to defend this decision, remaining open to alternative solutions (adding network, accepting a higher level of congestion, changing land use assumptions) can lead to lower costs and a higher degree of satisfaction. Decision Making - At the end of a process it is important that the entity in charge of making a decision documents and explains the basis for that decision. This documentation and communication needs to follow the project along the course of its development so that designers or stakeholders who come to the process later, understand the decisions that have been made.
Design Even Big Projects in Small Increments Just because a project is listed as a single project in the regional plan, this does not mean it should have a single design. On the contrary, the cross-section of an arterial project, for example, should vary in response to the contexts through which it passes. In areas of high pedestrian activity or those containing historic landscape features, speed design should be lower so as to be compatible with these other street elements. By designing big projects in small increments, greater consensus can be gained and projects will t better into communities.
The changing face of Abercorn Street as it passes from one context to another. The two lane section to the north supports twice as much ground oor density as the multi-lane section to the south due to the presence of network.

The Pr oc e ss f or Conte xt Se nsitive So lu tio n s
51
3. Design Elements All of the elements that will be part of a street should be considered in making design decisions. If regional vehicular needs are the only design element that drives design decisions, it is likely elements such as trees, sidewalks and bicycle facilities will suffer. Often, nding a middle-ground design solution can prove benecial to the community at large and assure that all of the elements of the street can work well together.
Implementation Strategies Since these processes are not currently the norm in the City and County, change will require a commitment on the part of the local jurisdictions. The following are some ideas that should help in making positive change toward a more balanced process. A Playbook for Savannah/Chatham County Denition of Roles and Responsibilities Implementation of these ideas will require a champion. This must be a person or persons who believe in the principles espoused in this manual and who is willing to monitor and inuence projects from beginning to end. This will include reminding all parties of their proper roles in a collaborative process. Engagement The person who is responsible for implementation of this manual must not be afraid to engage in dialog with project designers, the public, elected ofcials or anyone else who has inuence over a project. Such engagement can help to shine a light on the design process and provide early evidence of any contentious issues. Documentation Often when projects go wrong, it is not through conscious effort, but miscommunication. It is imperative that designers understand decisions that have been made during the planning process and that planners remain engaged through the design process. The manual point-person will be key to assuring this documentation of decisions occurs.
Design elements such as lane width, tree placement, parking, land form and pedestrian facilities can all be seen in this photo
Savannahs 1733 Plan includes plenty of network and connectivity

52
9.0 Int e r i m Am e ni t y S o lu tio n s
The way that streets are designed and planned in Savannah has evolved from the small-scale horse and pedestrian-based principles that were employed in the sixteenth century, to the automobile driven standards that are largely employed today. That evolution took place over a long period of time and changing to t todays needs in the City and County will take a long time as well. What is to be done in the interim? While the preceding standards provide an ideal from which to start, in reality some streets in the region and projects that will be developed will not t neatly into these standards. For example, an agency may make a case that mobility concerns dictate that a road must exceed the lane limit guidelines. Or a street that was built long ago outside of our context sensitive standards might be in need of some retro-t solutions to improve its livability. Some might refer to these as band-aid type solutions, but areas in transition are often in need of a band-aid. The following are a few guidelines to the implementation of these interim solutions, and some of the tools that might help to address community concerns on problem facilities or projects.
Identify Needs and Deciencies If an area does not have current pedestrian activity, and it is unlikely that future development or redevelopment would stimulate this activity, it may not be wise to invest scarce pedestrian funding in such an area. If a rural area has a marsh character, adding canopy trees may not be the best solution to preserve its character. In order to help identify areas that may be good candidates for amenities treatment, it is helpful to look for a few things that typically go wrong in transportation corridors: High Vehicle Speeds As has been discussed in previous chapters, high design speeds lead to most of the results that communities consider undesirable on a corridor. This includes lower pedestrian safety and lack of trees. Lack of Bike and Pedestrian Facilities Missing or substandard sidewalks, particularly in activity centers are usually a tip-off to a corridor in need of attention. Bad Land Form Nearly as detrimental as missing sidewalks are land forms that do not relate to the sidewalks. If land uses are separated from the street by a sea of parking, the opportunities to create a pleasant street environment are minimal. Mismatched Design Features - These might include a missing section of trees on a canopy corridor or grade separated intersections in an activity center. Barren Landscape An utter lack of landscaping, trees, street furniture or other interesting vertical elements can detract from the vitality of a corridor.
Start Early, Stay Involved With regard to projects under development, the biggest key to impacting the ultimate design is to coordinate early and stick with the process. The longer a project has progressed and the more decisions that have been made, the more difcult is can be to effect changes. At the beginning of the process, questions should be asked about the goals and objectives of a planned project: What need is this project intended to address? What evidence of this need can be presented? Is this project only to address transportation needs, or are other community goals to be considered? What is the menu of solutions that are being or have been considered? Are there other alternatives that can meet the stated goals? Would the proposed solution or solutions t well into the communities touched by the project? If not, could different evaluation criteria or design criteria be considered (lower design speed, parallel corridors, land use changes, etc.)?
Tools and Standards When a community has identied a project or a corridor in need of some help, the following toolbox of amenities can be of use in softening the impacts of an otherwise negative project: Sidewalks and Bike Treatments Section 7 (page 48) includes a detailed discussion on the design of bicycle and pedestrian trails. As has been discussed previously, the applicability of these vital components often depends on vehicle speeds in an area. In general, if vehicle speeds are below 35mph, the types of bicycle and pedestrian treatments outlined in the design guidelines section will work well. As vehicle speeds rise, solutions such as detached sidewalks or reconsideration of bicycle facilities may be appropriate. The Atlanta Regional Commissions Bike and Ped Toolkit is a good reference source for more detail on how to design and implement these solutions in various corridor conditions. Streetscape Treatments The addition of street furniture, pedestrian-scale lighting, or alternative paving treatments can add to the vitality and allure of a community. This can be particularly desirable if a municipality is hoping to attract reinvestment to an area. It is often useful to categorize streetscape elements into the functional (benches, lighting, etc.), the aesthetic (paving, landscaping, etc.) and those that fall in between (trees). These elements can be compared to an areas needs and available funding and decisions can be made regarding priorities and timeframe of implementation.
As the project progresses, continue to communicate with those responsible for the planning, design and even the construction. Often it is found that unpopular decisions late in the process are a result of the lack of documentation and communication of earlier decisions. Identify Context In the design of a new project or enhancement of an existing corridor, the context will tend to suggest the appropriate solutions. For example, an arterial passing through an undeveloped rural community probably would not see enough pedestrian use to make an elaborate streetscape project a sound investment. On the contrary, an arterial passing through an urban activity center would not be complete without safe and effective sidewalks. These tools of context identication have been discussed in some detail in this manual. Matching the tools listed later in this chapter to the appropriate context can help to prioritize amenities investments to help communities most and attract subsequent private investment where appropriate.

53
Landscaping and Trees These elements that are often included as part of streetscape projects hold a special signicance in Savannah and Chatham County. As the CUTS resolution clearly stated, trees are considered an essential element of the character of the City and County. Assuring that this character is preserved may be a higher priority here than it might be in other communities. In general, it is important that the historic role and placement of trees and landscaping be given full consideration in the development of transportation projects. The presence of canopy trees could be a factor that suggests consideration of alternative corridors for mobility or relaxed level of service standards. Any removal of trees deemed necessary should be followed by a vigilant effort to replace the trees in kind and in number. Section 7.0 (Guidelines for Developing Canopy Streets) provides some guidance in this regard. Trafc Calming and Lane Reductions One of the obstacles to the addition of sidewalks, bike lanes, landscape buffers, landscaped medians or other solutions that add to the livability of an area is the lack of available right of way. One of the places that some communities look for this right of way is in the road itself. Reducing lane widths can help to lower vehicle speeds through sensitive areas and can provide additional space for needed amenities. Some communities have taken this idea one step further and implemented road diets. St. George Street in Toronto, Ontario, Lake Washington Boulevard in Kirkland, Washington (near downtown), Main Street Santa Monica, California are examples of places where aggresive road diet programs have been implemented. Connectivity and Access Management One of the biggest obstacles to creating more livable corridors is the perceived need to widen arterial corridors. As we have discussed, these wide, fast corridors make trees, sidewalks and bike facilities difcult and, at times, impossible to implement. One of the tools that can be utilized to forestall such widenings is to improve system connectivity and corridor access management. The effect of system connectivity can be seen in corridors like Abercorn. As the streets supporting grid becomes more and more sparse going north to south, more and more lanes have to be added to the arterial corridor since the trafc burden is no longer spread out. Ironically, the two lane section of Abercorn to the north supports more than twice the land use density as the multi-lane sections to the south. Many drivers would agree that the experience of driving on the northern portions of Abercorn is more pleasant as well. In built-out areas where recovering this level of connectivity is more challenging, there are still interim steps that can be taken in the form of access management. Asking one arterial corridor to handle all of the duties of regional trafc movement and property access will typically overload a street and precipitate a widening project. Guidelines for connectivity within the Appendix illustrates the benets of developing street networks and developing connectivity and the right kind of built form. Section 3.0 of this manual discusses access management as a possible technique, particularly along commercial corridors, to help separate local access trips from longer regional trips. By removing some of the property access duties from the arterial corridor, the need for a widening can often be eliminated, or at least postponed until more substantial network projects might become feasible. Modied Level of Service Standards The solution for some communities may be to redene the problem. If the quest to meet a goal of vehicle level of service (LOS) D is causing larger, detrimental effects to the community, perhaps it is not the right goal. The solution for some communities has been to develop a process that utilizes vehicle LOS as only one component of a larger evaluation process. For other communities, the solution has been to develop LOS standards that vary based on the area and its needs. In either case, the right answer will be one that relates to the communitys context.
Abercorns supporting network decreases as it extends south. The ne grained built pattern gives way to larger blocks and pedestrian hostile street environments

54
Appendi x : Ro a dwa y D e s ig n E leme n ts - I n te r s e c tions
Where ROW permits, bike lane should continue up to stop bar or crosswalk.
Bic y c le Lane at Intersections
ONLY
BEGIN RIGHT TURN LANE YIELD TO BIKES
RIGHT LANE MUST TURN RIGHT
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
ONLY
SHARE THE ROAD
A. Right-turn-only lane
B. Parking lane into right-turn only lane
C. Right-turn-only lane
D. Optional right/straight and right-turn only
Note: The dotted lines in cases A and B are optional (see case C)
Source: AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities
Example: Typical intersection with bike lanes and turn lanes.
Curb Return Radius Min. Max.

Local - Local Local - Collector Collector - Collector Collector - Arterial Arterial - Arterial 10 15 15 20 20 25 25 25 50 50
Intersection design should safely accommodate both vehicles and pedestrians. To comfortably accommodate pedestrians, minimize the curb return radius and intersection pavement width to the greatest extent possible.
* A l l ow encroac hm ent int o adjacent lane by design vehi cl es w hen t ur ning on low volum e st r eet s.
Pedestrian Crossing at Intersections
R1
R3
KEY
Building
If x > 48" Slope y = 1:10 If x < 48" Slope y = 1:12 x 36" Min. Slope y Slope 1:12 48" Min. Well defined edge parallel to direction of pedestrian flow Segment of straight curb Flared side 48" Min. 24" Min. long segment of straight curb
Building
Building
Building
R1 = Actual Curb Radius R2 = Effective Radius R3 = Curb radius needed without bike lane and parking
R2
Sour ce: M ain St r eet . . . When a Highway Runs Thr ough I t : A Handbook f or O r egon Com m unit ies
S our 24 c e: A D A S ta n d a rd s fo r Ac c e s s i b l e D esi gn

A p p e n d ix
A-1
Appendi x : Ro a dwa y D e s ig n E leme n ts - M e d ia n s

See Table (4'-6') See Table See Table
8' Min. 20' Min .

. 48" Min 48" Min
Pedestrian Crossing with Special Pavement
Travel Lane
Travel Lane
Travel Lane
Travel Lane
Travel Lane
Travel Lane
Travel Lane
Travel Lane
Raised Median
Continuous Left-turn Used on arterial streets in commercial areas with frequent driveway. If blocks are larger than 600, place pedestrian crossing with special treatment as well as pedestrian refuge island at intervals of 600 to 1420 (where possible).
Narrow Median Use on collector and arterial streets with infrequent driveways and intersections. Most commonly used for retrot project where there is limited ROW. Landscape where feasible.
Wide Median Use on arterial streets with less frequent driveways and intersections.
Rural Median
Planting in Medians
Distance from face of non-mountable curb, when tree diameter is greater than 4 inches measured 6 inches off the ground.
Optional In
Arterials Urban Activity Center Industrial Rural Cluster Rural Agricultural Collectors Urban Activity Center Rural Cluster
Continuous Left-Turn
11' - 14' 12' - 14'
Narrow Median
4' - 6'
Wide Median
12' - 30' 12' - 30'
Rural Median
Bottom of tree canopy
14 14
10' - 12' 10' - 12'
8.5'
4' - 6'
10' - 16' 10' - 16'
Top of ground cover
4' 2'
Travel Lane
Median
Travel Lane
25

A p p e n d ix
A-2
Appendi x : Ro a dwa y D e s ig n E leme n ts - S id e w a lks
Wi dth o f S i d e w a l k s Les s I nt e n s e D e v e l o p m e n t M o r e In te n se De ve lo p ment
Location and D esign of S idewalks

On arterial and collector streets, sidewalks should be located at the outside edge of the road right-of-way, except at intersections where they should be located as shown in the adjacent graphic. The sidewalk grade should remain consistent along a roadway corridor. At locations where a driveway crosses a sidewalk, the grade of the driveway shall match that of the sidewalk.
Sidewalk
STOP
Sidewalk
4' Min. Planting Strip
Sidewalk (see table)
Sidewalk (see table)
Offset Sidewalk Intersection Treatment Minimum Horizontal Clearance Width Posted Speed < 25 mph: 1.5 feet from face of curb Posted Speed > 25 mph: 4 feet* from face of curb * 1.5 feet under constrained conditions Roadway Reconstruction Provide sidewalk on both sides of the roadway for: Arterial in Urban Activity Centers and Rural Clusters Collectors in Urban Activity Centers, Village Centers, and Rural Clusters Neighborhood streets in Urban Activity Centers, Village Centers, and Neighborhood Centers If ROW is constrained, may provide sidewalks on only one side of the roadway for: Arterials in Industrial land use type Collectors in Industrial land use type Neighborhood streets in Neighborhoods, Rural Clusters, and Rural Agricultural land use types
Horizontal Clearance
Horizontal Clearance
O ff Cur b
On Cu rb
S idewal k W i d t h s b y C l a ssifica tio n

Off and On Curb Sidewalk Widths Functional Classication Landmark Historic District 10-16 10-16 8-15 Neighborhood Historic District 8-15 8-15 8-15 Traditional Neighborhoods 8-15 8-15 8-15 Village Centers 10-15 8-15 8-15 Suburban Communities 6-8 8-15 6-8 Gated Communities 6-8 8-15 6-8 Scenic Corridors 5-6 8-15 No Rural or Undeveloped Corridors No No No
Arterial Major Collector Minor Collector or Main Street
(Referenced from Design Guidelines in Section 6.0 of this manual.)

A p p e n d ix
A-3
Appendi x : Ro a dwa y D e s ig n E leme n ts - Tree S p ac ing in Sight Tr iangle

Description
30 Maximum caliper (diameter) within limits of sight window (mm) Minimum spacing (c. to c. of trunk) (ft)
> 4" < 11" _ > 11" < 18" _
Speed (mph)
35
> 4" < 11" _ > 11" > 4" < 18" < 11" _ _
Location of Shade Trees

50 55 60
> 11" < 18" _
40
>11" < 18" _
45
> 4" > 11" < 11" < 18" _ _
> 4" < 11" _
> 11" < 18" _
> 11" > 4" > 4" < 18" < 11" _ _ < 11" _
22
91
27
108
33
126
40
146
45
165
52
173
60
193
Shade trees shall be located to provide shade to users of the sidewalks and multi-use trails. On arterial and collector roadways, shade trees should be located between the travel lane and the sidewalk. To provide personal security, users of the sidewalks must be visible from vehicles in the travel lane. Landscaping located between the travel lanes and the sidewalk must not block these views. Therefore, shrubs and tree canopies should be pruned to allow visibility from vehicles in the travel lane to users of the sidewalk.
Source: FDOT
Sizes and spacing are based on the following conditions:

A. A single line of trees in the median parallel to but not necessarily colinear with the centerline. A straight approaching mainline within skew limits 1. Trees and palms less than or equal to 11 in diameter casting a vertical 6 wide shadow band on a vehicle entering at stop bar location when viewed by mainline driver beginning at distance d. 2. Palms with diameters greater than 11 up to 18 spaced at intervals providing a 2 second full view of entering vehicle at stop bar location when viewed by mainline driver beginning at distance d (see perception diagram).
Location of Trafc Control Devices, Light Poles, and Above Ground Utilities
Trafc Control Devices will be designed and located with the Manual of Uniform Trafc Control Devices and Roadway and Trafc Design Standards
B. C.
Restricted
Unrestricted (2 Sec. Min.)
Min. Spacing When Caliper > 11 < 18 d
Perception Diagram

A p p e n d ix
A-4
Appendi x : G ui de l i n e s fo r B ette r C o n n e c tiv ity : B e ne fits of Small B loc k Patte r ns
A Manageable Network
It is important to understand street network as a highly important dimension of a street system. Design guidelines may govern how particular streets and roads will be congured to serve their users, and these design criteria rely on many factors of system wide trafc functions and distribution that are closely tied to how thoroughly a network of streets is connected. Small blocks are advantageous because they allow the development of a ner grain of urban fabric that at once improves the efciency of the transportation system, promotes a more healthy, versatile economic base and enhances the nature of the built environment. As the legacy of post-World War II development patterns has given rise to a paradigm of larger sites and greater space between public thoroughfares, it is essential to consider the benets that dening block size has for a citys character and well being. Streets are the foundation of city building: they provide a means of transportation and conveyance while they function as a citys most immediate, accessible public space. For centuries, cities have been created to concentrate trade and the sharing of information, and throughout urban history a variety of concerns has led to the particular arrangement of streets in different cities and towns, including topography, land ownership, economics, transportation technology, climate, and cultural inuences. Yet the spaces the streets formthe blocksare the spaces on which cities will be built. One nds a useful and telling metaphor in likening a city to the human body: streets are the bones on which the city will rest and which will allow it to grow. The blocks that these bones form are the citys potential for growing into its frame: that is, making the most of the land upon which it is built and being strong and healthy. From a policy perspective, smaller block sizes are a vital element to design guidelines and subdivision regulations that seek to create a livable community. Traditional development patterns sought to utilize valuable land as efciently as possible by building to the street and utilizing rear access, most notably through midblock alleys, to provide service to buildings. This way of building had the well-known advantages of allowing more immediate access to the building and keeping services off of already busy streets. After World War II, development patterns shifted away from well-connected networks in favor of development patterns oriented to automobile transportation and emphasizing privacy, plentiful space and, hand-in-hand with being designed for widespread automobile use, ample parking facilities. In recent years planners have sought to move back to a traditional kind of development and are increasingly developing policies and land development regulations requiring it. However, the placement of buildings alone does not guarantee the successful function of a traditional urban environment: the means of circulation dened by the streets must promote adjacency and accessibility. While the argument for smaller blocks as a foundation for healthy urban development may be clear, it is also important to note that a solid network of smaller blocks and frequent intersections also have direct, demonstrated benets for a transportation system as well. Generally, they add travel alternatives and spare main roads and intersections from carrying all of a regions trafc, but they also provide many advantages to multimodal transportation concerns and parking. Conventional thought in trafc engineering has helped to steer roadway design, subdivision layout, and general street plans away from network, often on the argument that frequency of intersections, turning movements, signals and other conuence points create inefciency in the overall system. It is important to view the benets to a strong network of streets and blocks. Network, as characterized by regular intersections, turning opportunities, and redundant paths, actually generates efciency and enriches a transportation systems effects on the community it serves. It is key to consider a manageable network that provides these benets of efciency and community enhancement while meeting the needs of the transportation system, and not to err too far on one side.

A p p e n d ix
A-5
Functional Benets of a Street Network

Portland, Oregon
THIS
Circulation to off-street parking is on low-speed local streets
The benets of small blocks that best tie transportation and urbanism concerns involve parking. Parking requirements in land development regulations are often the reason that developers insist on large sites, but when these regulations allow exibility in meeting their requirementsnamely, between on-site parking and parking located on the street the benets of smaller block sizes are more apparent. In smaller block scenarios, street frontage is maximized: the illustration to the right shows nine blocks of 300 feet on a side, compared to the larger block below with one block with 1,000 feet on a side. The combined street frontage of the nine blocks is 10,800 feet (four 300foot sides, or 1,200 feet per block), which could accommodate 540 cars with on-street parking assuming no restrictions at corners or curb-cuts and 20 feet of length per parking space. The street frontage of the larger single block is only 4,000 feet, which, assuming the same lack of restrictions, would only accommodate 200 cars. Because of the redundancy of the network there is little loss of on-street parking potential in the nine-block scenario, but more parking must be sacriced in the large block scenario due to auxiliary lanes needed on larger streets. Regardless of the number of parking spaces that can be transferred from off-street to on-street location, it is important to remember that the area required per parking space is greatly reducedby as much as halfwith on-street parking. On-street parking does not require additional space for circulation and landscaping, as these are already accommodated within the existing components of the street. In addition, joint-use parking is much more feasible with smaller blocks, as users of a particular facility may not mind parking in a place not adjacent to it as the superior walking environment reduces the sense of separation from parking to destination. Any circulation to the interior of the block for on-site parking uses smaller, low-speed local streets with small blocks, but in a large-block scenario it must use larger streets, negotiating turns against greater volumes of oncoming trafc. In the case of structured parking, a standard bay width of 120 feet allows facilities to be placed easily within small blocks: blocks of 240 or even 360 feet on a side can accommodate sufcient width for internal circulation in a parking garage, regardless of the blocks length.
Ample on-street parking opportunities as well as greater potential access to off-street parking
Brandon, Florida
NOT THIS
Circulation to off-street parking is on busier streets
No on-street parking; off-street parking must access main road from limited number of points

A p p e n d ix
A-6
THIS
Functional Benets of a Street Network (Continued)
Small blocks tend to chop queues into smaller, more manageable groups; there is actually less signal delay in the system, even with more signals.
Multiple left turns lessen reliance on three-phase signals that actually reduce signal capacity. Left turns at intersections that are not signalized operate in the shadow of the signal: the signal controls oncoming and turning cross trafc, which allows motorists at the non-signalized intersections to make turns and not rely on the signal. This greatly improves signal capacity and efciency.
One of the great benets to the actual system of trafc movement is multiple, frequent opportunities for left turns. This allows trafc signals to avoid a three-phase conguration which deprives the signal of capacity. Left turns at non-signalized intersections operate in the shadow of the signalthis multiplies effectiveness of the signal by reducing left turns that it would normally process, and these left turns are facilitated at the shadow intersections by the signals periodic control of trafc in the opposite direction. Small blocks separate a trafc queue that would normally form at isolated signals into smaller groups. This actually allows for reduced signal delay, even if signals are more closely spaced to correspond with a greater number of intersections. Microsimulation models such as SYNCHRO are now showing this conguration to be superior to larger, longer block faces. These longer spaces between signals and intersecting streets create problematically long queues that block driveways and require lengthened auxiliary lanes (e.g. for left turns). Similarly, in building a denser network, smaller blocks allow motorists an opportunity to avoid left turns on busy streets by making indirect loop turns. Left turns are obviatedindeed, they are less efcient when the distance added to the trip by making three right turns around a block can be traveled in less time than the intersection delay caused by attempting a left turn. When these operational factors are considered on the scale of one block, the differences may be modest. Yet when the cumulative effects of regularly-generated volumes are considered for an entire street or road, the potential problems of limited connectivity are much more apparent. Let us use an example of a two-lane road that has been developed over several years with residential subdivisions, each connected to the main road from a single point of entry. This is an environment that is common and enduringly popular, and indeed the majority of private residential development activity continues to follow its patterns. If each of these subdivisions has twenty dwelling units, conventional engineering assumptions say that each will generate approximately 240 vehicle trips per day. With only one such subdivision along the entire length of the road, movement is interrupted only in the area where turning trafc returning home to the subdivision is trying to access it. When the road has thirty subdivisions over the course of a mile,
NOT THIS
Longer blocks generate longer, more problematic queues: they require longer auxiliary lanes and the queues block driveways and curb cuts, complicating access from the street.

A p p e n d ix
A-7
though, all accessed by single entrances, this suggests a possible 7,200 trips attempting to use thirty intersections.3 It is here that the benets of network and small blocks with frequent connection become most apparent: while much of the added trafc volume will attempt to reach the subdivisions from their main points of entry (i.e. local streets that intersect with the main road), other local streets parallel to the main road allow motorists to circulate internally in a way that avoids the main road altogether. In such a scenario of single-entry subdivisions, the block size is effectively innite: there is no alternative to using the main road to move from one residential subdivision to another. One must leave the subdivision by a single access point then use the main road to move anywhere else. This increases trip length, travel time, and congestion on the main road as it is forced to serve local as well as more regional trips. Parallel streets and internal network greatly increase the capacity of the street system and leave the main roads better equipped to absorb trips across a greater distance. This consideration has important implications for a citys transportation system. Even though the scenario may not be as oriented to single-point entry to subdivisions, street patterns without strong connectivity inevitably require the main road that does connect them to be used for anything more than the most immediate local trips. As these roads likely handle trips not directly associated with the subdivisions, they bear a greater trafc burden and lose effective capacity from an increase in turning movements. In the case of the mile-long stretch of road accommodating thirty residential subdivisions, the approximately 7,200 trips add volume to the road equivalent to nearly half of its capacity, and these are strictly trips generated from the adjoining subdivisions in that mile length. As connectivity is provided and the distance between connecting streets is decreased, the opportunities for alternative routes increase substantially. Not only do more direct routes obviate the need to use main roads, but the presence of alternatives gives exibility to the users of the main roads who encounter such obstacles as congested intersections, accidents, or other sources of delay.
Ample turning opportunities and parallel streets allow trips to be distributed evenly through network
All residential units on each side street send trips through a single intersection

A p p e n d ix
A-8
Pedestrians
NETWORK
Many routes from A to B: a pedestrian/cyclist amenity in being able to choose less busy, less threatening roads
Frequently intersecting streets allow cyclists a relief space to move out of the way and allow passing vehicles (especially transit and emergency vehicles) to move ahead. This also keeps cyclists from navigating the space adjacent to car doors too closely. Bicycles cannot do this as often on larger blocks.
Among the greatest beneciaries to a network of small blocks are pedestrians and bicyclists. As with motorists, smaller blocks allow pedestrians and cyclists a greater variety of routes between destinations. In addition to the exibility to choose a different route or to continue moving in an alternative direction in the event of obstruction (e.g. to turn at a street if moving trafc presents crossing that street), a denser street network allows pedestrians and cyclists to avoid busy routes and dangerous mixed trafc. Larger blocks, as they channel trafc onto fewer roads, expose pedestrians and cyclists to greater vehicle trafcand greater chances of vehicle conict. Just as the even and relatively frequent spacing of blocks places reasonable demand on the motorists attention, smaller blocks give the pedestrian a sense of progress in providing a cross street every 75 to 90 seconds. As a general measure, a desirable pedestrian environment that allows adequate trafc movement will have functional block perimeters of between 1,500 and 2,100 feet. This guideline yields walkable block sizes of between 250 to 350 feet by 500 to 700 feet. While the perimeter can be articulated differently among the different block faces, it maintains generally smaller sizes, no more than 400 to 450 feet for square block sides. As most informal directions are given in numbers of blocks (for example, the store is three blocks past the park on Pine Street), this maintains a pedestrians condence in nding his or her destination in a timely manner. After the destination is found, though, redundancy in the system gives the pedestrian a greater opportunity for a walking circuit: to explore all parts of the neighborhood, the downtown, or whatever environment s/he is in without retracing steps. Bicycles With regard to cyclists, although they face the same need for attention to potentially crossing trafc as motorists, more frequent spacing of cross streets gives them an opportunity to let automobile trafc in the same lane move ahead: cyclists can move a safe distance from passing automobiles without worry of encroaching too far into the dangerous door zone of parked cars on the street. As mentioned previously, smaller blocks encourage a smaller scale of building footprints and denser development. The rewards of this kind of built environment, though, are that the building and the use that it houses are more immediately apparent and accessible to pedestrians, passing motorists, and other people on the same street or block. This is particularly true in the case of retail: while automobiles may not have the comfort of parking in dedicated spaces in front of a building, they may park on the street in front of it or immediately behind it in the middle of a block. Pedestrians and cyclists, though, are not separated from entry to the building at all.
LARGE BLOCKS
Cyclists maintain a safe distance from the radius of an opening door from a car parked on street. This can cause circulation problems when narrow widths prevent vehicles in travel lanes from safely passing bicycles. Without frequent stopping/ passing opportunities, this can lead to inefciency as the bicycles preclude cars from passing and slow them down.
Only two routes from A to B: pedestrians and cyclists must use roads with heavier trafc

A p p e n d ix
A-9
Trafc calming With block lengths of 300 to 400 feet, a motorist traveling at 30 miles per hour will cross an intersecting street every 7 to 9 seconds, which conforms to the 8- to 10-second attention span that is needed to sustain a drivers attention. Each intersection functions as a potential trafc calming device: it is an event that demands attention. Even and frequent spacing of these intersections through shorter block lengths is thus an incentive for the motorist to take slower speeds. User Safety Adding redundancy to the network through more streets (and consequently smaller blocks) allows the same number of drivers a greater array of options for reaching a single destination and allows them to be distributed more evenly among these options. With larger blocks and less frequent intersecting streets, a motorist has fewer route options to any destination and all motorists following the same path must share the same streets. This increases the probability of conictsof vehicles with other vehicles or of vehicles with pedestrians. With this greater variety of route options it is more feasible to plan a street hierarchy: naturally some streets will function on a higher level, but with a greater density of streets in the network it is possible to keep other streets more limited in function, serving slower-moving local trafc at reduced volumes. However, the street hierarchy can remain connected through a grid and not based on dendritic patterns of arterials, collectors and culs-de-sac, each with progressively higher trafc volumes that account for a share of all local trips. Emergency Response Another element of public safety that benets from small block sizes is emergency response. In a small-block street pattern, responders can close a block length of a street at the two intersections that dene it, prohibiting moving trafc from interfering with an emergency operation and allowing the responders to stage their efforts from two convenient locations. Fireghters in particular prefer to be within 200 feet of a hydrant; blocks up to 400 feet on a side with hydrants on each corner allow this threshold to be maintained. In general, though, the principle of redundancy that is built into a dense network of small blocks is a great advantage to emergency response vehicles. The frequency of connection in a small-block system provides two, often three completely redundant routes to an event, allowing the responders themselves to circumvent unforeseen obstructions on the way to an emergency.
Place Benets of Small Blocks

City Legibility One of the greatest benets of a well-connected network of streets and small blocks is that it makes a city understandable to residents and visitors alike: there is order and clarity to a citys organization if its streets connect and allow intelligible ways between locations. Kevin Lynch illustrates this principle through his concept of place legibility, or the ease with which people understand the layout of a place.1 To do this, people begin by creating their own cognitive picture, or mental map. This includes what a city contains, where it is located, what lies in between and what distinguishes one part of a city from another. Regular users of a citys built environment, such as its inhabitants, and occasional users, such as visitors, both form mental maps, even if to varying degrees. A structure of compact blocks with a dense network of intersecting streets greatly facilitates mental maps in that the connecting paths between locations are sensible and direct: people may choose routes with landmarks that are easier for them to remember, their sense of spatial relationships is based on simpler fundamentals such as number of streets passed and left or right turns. Indeed, in these cases the user may have a sense of the true geography without ever even seeing it on a physical map because the opportunities to analyze connection and direction are much greater. When block sizes become too large, the order and execution of a mental map are more difcult to achieve. The user of a built environment may even know multiple ways from one point to another, but the reduced opportunities from larger blocks and greater distances between street connections make the overall journey less intelligible and intuitive. Encourage Local Economy While urbanism concerns are not necessarily always aligned with economic concerns, it is important to consider that markets for building are nite: the market does not have unlimited demand, and large blocks allow a developer either to build large amounts of space or to use land inefcientlybe that for parking or for space that cannot be used due to the architectural requirements for the building and constraints on the sites. Smaller blocks minimize these concerns in that they provide a more regular, easily divided pattern of land and encourage more efcient land use. In other words, small blocks lead to smaller parcels, which in turn lead to a collection of individual land owners and not a small number of single owners of large properties. With this kind of cadastral pattern, which is amenable to a small-scale economy, it is easier for properties to be reused or redeveloped: landowners do not have
to wait for a large-scale tenant, often necessarily from a large-scale national chain, to realize their redevelopment ambitions, and smaller tenants have greater opportunity to nd spaces in a variety of buildings than the spaces designed to accommodate them in large-block development. Smaller blocks can benet the public more directly as well: through increased tax revenue. Portland, Oregon subdivided land into 200 by 200 blocks to maximize the number of corner lots, which command a greater premium as real estate and therefore generate higher property taxes, relative to all land in the city. More Efcient Development Development based on larger blocksor land areas bounded by arterial roads that lose any scale similarity to urban grid blocks at allconforms easily to larger patterns: big-box retail, large buildings, and other congurations that are difcult to modify. When development is based on smaller blocks it is required to consider how to use land most efciently, namely with respect to how much of the land may be built upon. This leads to denser and more sustainable development patterns: buildings that address the street, that locate on-site parking behind buildings, and that may even contain multiple oors to better utilize land. Enable Mixed Use and Adjacency Another advantage of small blocks is that they promote adjacency. Typically streets will be dedicated to a single land use, or a mixture of land uses with a common ground-oor element. Yet complementary land uses must be able to access this rst land use: residential neighborhoods must be able to access the shopping along main streets; in turn the shopping needs to be close to the neighborhoods it is serving. With smaller blocks it is feasible to set smaller areas for different uses as a dense street network provides adequate circulation between origins and destinations, where with larger blocks it is difcult to expect effective circulation between uses without the addition of a de facto internal street system. This is often a problem with large commercial sites, such as shopping malls and newer power centers. The size of the sites and the parking required to serve the commercial space necessitates an internal circulation system, yet the residential areas that provide the shopping centers market are entirely separated from it.

A p p e n d ix
A-10
Landscaping and Street Trees

In addition to the benets provided by street network, retaining street trees and seeking to more proactively incorporate them into street design will provide amenity to the built environment and offer controls to roadway design that manage travel speeds and improve safety. Conventional thought in roadway design has suggested that street trees pose problems: they are a regularly placed roadside obstacle often very close to the road, violating principles of clear zones and sight triangles. The many identied problems of street trees that this thought tends to cite are overcome with care by designers. Depending on the nature of the road, street trees are placed every 30 to 50 feet. These trees are carefully positioned to allow adequate sight triangles at intersections and driveways, to not block illumination of the street from overhead lamps, and not impact lines above or below ground. Street trees of various varieties can be used in all climates, including semi-arid and even arid conditions. Reduced and more appropriate urban trafc speeds. Urban street trees create vertical walls framing streets, and a dened edge, helping motorists guide their movement and assess their speed (leading to overall speed reductions). Street safety comparisons show a reduction of run-off-the-road crashes and overall crash severity when street tree sections are compared with equivalent treeless streets. Faculty at Texas A&M University led simulation research which found that motorists slow down while driving through a tree-lined streetscape. These observations are also noted in practice when following motorists along rst a treed and non-treed portions of the same street. Field observations of the Texas A&M research noted differences in travel speeds of up to 15 miles per hour. Perceived travel times. Other research and observations conrm that motorists perceive travel times differently when traveling through environments with closely located off-street elements than they do in environments without any such visual peripheries. While this argument is generally made in favor of the urban streetscapes of traditional built environments, encompassing buildings as well as trees, trees do function as the rst visual dressing of the street and can have benets in reducing perceived travel times all on their own. This is an important, if not well understood, point in assessing how roadway improvement programs emphasize delay as a major criterion in justifying and prioritizing projects. Delay, especially at intersections, is often used as a factor in rating a street or intersections performance (or level of service) in moving trafc through. This approach treats delay as something to be minimized or eliminated and does not seem to be able to express an understanding of psychological phenomena affecting drivers: delay is only regarded as a problem when it is perceived and motorists expectations for travel speeds are not met. Street trees allow motorists to experience a different environment and, in expanding the realm of their attention and interest, to move at a speed which is inherently comfortable to them. Improved potential trafc operations. When properly positioned and maintained, the backdrop of street trees emphasizes and allows better vision of those features that should be dominant, such as vital trafc regulatory signs. In the absence of a well-developed greenscape, the grey mass of paved surfaces dominates the motorists eld of vision and important signs are less discernible.

A p p e n d ix
A-11
Form-based land development regulations, over time, focus on building placement, mass, and overall character and form of the built environment and not simply land use. While use is a critical consideration from a transportation point of view, the nature of the corridor can better dene the types of land uses that will be appropriate by demanding a certain character of urban fabric to be developed there. The emerging boulevard example shown here is supporting primarily commercial uses through its placement of buildings to the street (thus maximizing pedestrian access) and its assignment of service- and parking-oriented trips to rear alleys.
Encouraging the Right Land Uses

One essential element in enhancing the process of integrating land use and transportation is enabling land development to dene and protect neighborhood and corridor boundaries and to respond to the streets that serve it. In addition to allowing the physical environment to interact with streets and to enhance the pedestrian realm, this type of land development regulation emphasizes building placement as a fundamental part of site development and is not concerned solely with the nature of the use. An increasingly common tool for this kind of development is form-based codes that emphasize building placement and envelope, height, relationship to street and other urban design-related concerns over strict separation of land uses. Form-based codes are becoming popular tools in communities where communities have expressed a strong set of preferences for the appearance of their built environment. Form-based codes being adopted around the United States are designed to reect a communitys vision for its physical appearance and make implementation of this vision possible through a streamlined, simplied land development process. These codes rely on a simple foundation: requirements for building siting need only to be stated in basic terms of a maximum setback or build-to line, a required amount of the lot to be fronted with building mass and a maximum number and density of driveways to be allowed per property (or per block face). Arlington County, Virginia has adopted a form-based code for its Columbia Pike corridor, an important commercial thoroughfare that, through such limitations on development opportunities as small parcels and trafc congestion, had become less and less attractive as a place for investment since its 1950s heyday. These limitations led over time to a fundamental mismatch between what development opportunities the land and the corridor provided and what demand truly existed. Thus, the land uses were not appropriate for the corridor: parking requirements made development of any new businesses difcult without devoting large sections of a given parcel to surface parking (thus guaranteeing a large number of free-standing commercial uses) and small parcels meant frequent driveway access points along the road. To address this, land development regulations were adapted and recalibrated to focus on the nature of the corridor rst: Arlington Countys Main Street and one of the regions primary roads. While the function of such a street in the surrounding urban and social fabric meant that its uses would remain commercial, land development regulations shifted their attention to making sure the buildings addressed the street, that pedestrians could access them as easily as automobiles, and that conceptual plans for mass transit were given an opportunity for success by retaining the strength of the corridors urban fabric.

A p p e n d ix
A-12
Encouraging the Right Land Uses

Form-based codes accomplish several benets for the transportation system as well: rst and foremost, their streamlining of mixed-use development through emphasis on proper physical form encourages shorter trips, many on foot, as a decreased reliance on the nature of the land use means that complementary uses can locate closer to one another. They also separate the distribution of trips, allowing service-oriented trips to keep off of main streets, facilitating trafc ow by removing vehicles making frequent turns and increasing the space available for on-street parking (thus decreasing dependence on on-site parking to meet an establishments needs). It must be noted that such a system applies to all context types. Encouraging the right land use does not necessarily mean the land use must be the same in all parts of Chatham County, but rather ts the context and the vision for future development. Indeed, the form-based code does not need to disallow land use and building types that are commonly developed today. The intent of this type of code is not to discourage particular kinds of development, but rather to bring that development in line with a communitys vision for its physical environment and to use it to dene neighborhoods and commercial districts.
An example of form-based codes that require building placement against the street. In this redevelopment site in Orlando, Florida, the placement of new buildings against a network of streets being added to the block denes the street space and makes future widening difcult, if not completely impractical. This is an appropriate street treatment for an urban context.

A p p e n d ix
A-13
Appendi x : So urc e s a n d Oth e r M a ter ia l
Design Guidelines Sources and Links

Austin, TX Downtown Austin Design Guidelines, May 2000 http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/downtown/designguidelines.htm Cary, NC Design Guidelines Manual, August 2001 http://www.townofcary.org/depts/dsdept/P&Z/Carydesi.pdf Charlotte, NC (Mecklenburg Country) CDOT Urban Street Design Guidelines, April 2005 http://www.charmeck.org/Departments/Transportation/Urban+Street+ Design+Guidelines.htm Fort Collins, CO Fort Collins Design Manual, May 2000 http://fcgov.com/advanceplanning/design-manual.php Georgia Department of Transportation GDOT CSD Manual, April 2006 http://www.dot.state.ga.us/csd/access/manualPDF/GDOTCSDManual-Final-2006-04-19.pdf Georgia Department of Transportation Pedestrian & Streetscape Guide, September 2003 http://www.walkable.org/download/Georgia_ped_streetscape_guide. pdf Raleigh, NC Downtown Raleigh Urban Design Handbook, July 2004 http://www.raleighnc.gov/publications/Planning/Guides%2c_Handbooks_and_Manuals/Urban_Design_Handbook.pdf
Articles & Case Studies relevant to CSS

Maryland Department of Transportation When Main Street Is A State Highway, 2003 http://www.marylandroads.com/businesswithSHA/projects/ohd/mainstreet/MainStreet.pdf Michigan Land Use Institute CSS Policy Draft, November 2004 http://mlui.org/downloads/csspolicy.pdf Michigan Land Use Institute People and Pavement, February 2004 http://www.mlui.org/downloads/exibledesign.pdf Michigan Land Use Institute Sensitivity Training, December 2004 http://www.mlui.org/transportation/fullarticle.asp?leid=16774 Nashville, TN (Davidson County) Clarksville Pike Corridor Study, May 2003 http://www.nashville.gov/mpc/urban.htm#corridor_studies National Charrette Institute Dynamic Planning Process, 2006 http://www.charretteinstitute.org/dynamic.html National Charrette Institute What is a Charrette, 2006 http://www.charretteinstitute.org/charrette.html New Jersey Department of Transportation Context Sensitive Design (CSD) Info & Chart, February 2004 http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/eng/CSD/ New Jersey Department of Transportation Future in Transportation (FIT): Create More Connections, August 2005 http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/njt/toolbox/connections. shtm New Jersey Department of Transportation Future in Transportation (FIT): Design Roads in Context, August 2005 http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/njt/toolbox/context.shtm New York Department of Transportation Context Sensitive Solutions Implementation Plan, May 2001 http://www.dot.state.ny.us/design/css/les/csdplan.pdf Rhode Island Avenue/US Route 1 - Mount Rainier, MD Context Sensitive Design Case Study No. 5, August 2002 http://www.contextsensitivesolutions.org/content/case_studies/kentucky_rainier/resources/kentucky_rainier_pdf/ Queensbury, NY Main Street Design Guidelines (extracted from Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance), June 2003 http://www.queensbury.net/mainstreet/Main%20Street%20Design%20 Guidelines.pdf Seattle, WA Making Streets That Work, May 1996 http://www.ci.seattle.wa.us/transportation/pdf/mstw.pdf Shelby Farms Parkway Memphis, TN (Shelby County) Context Sensitive Solutions Presentation, 2005 http://shelbycountytn.gov/FirstPortal/dotShowDoc/dotContent/Government/OfceoftheMayor/sfpat_index.htm Transportation Research Board of National Academies Context-Sensitive Design Around the Country, Transportation Research Circular, July 2004 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec067.pdf

A p p e n d ix
A-14

Savannah CSD Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Savannah CSD Manual

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Savannah CSD Manual

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Co n te x t S e n s itiv e D e s ig n M a nua l

C hatham County- Sa va nna h Me tr opolita n Pla nning C o mmis s io n

The Process For Context Sensitive Solutions Interim Amenity Solutions

1.0 Int ro duc t i o n

Speed 15 Mph 31 Mph 44 mph

Percentage of Pedestrian Fatalities in accidents 3.5% 37.0% 83.0%

Source: National Highway Trafc Safety Administration Federal Highway Administration

Context Sensitive Design Manual

2.0 Co nt e x t Se nsi t i v e S o lu tio n s - S ta te o f th e P rac tic e

Techniques of applying CSS Principles in transportation planning (FHWA)

Brief History of CSS

Context Sensitive Design Manual

Conte xt Se nsitive Solutions - Sta te of the Pr a c tic e

Context Sensitive Solutions : Efforts Around the Country

Context Sensitive Design Manual

Conte xt Se nsitive Solutions - Sta te of the Pr a c tic e

U.S. Route 50, Virginia

Euclid Avenue, Lexington, Kentucky

Context Sensitive Design Manual

Conte xt Se nsitive Solutions - Sta te of the Pr a c tic e

New Jersey Route 31 Land Use & Transportation Framework Plan

Context Sensitive Design Manual

Conte xt Se nsitive Solutions - Sta te of the Pr a c tic e

3.0 The Int e r- re l a t i o n s h ip b etw ee n Tra n s p o r ta t ion, L and U s e and D e s ign

Context Sensitive Design Manual

Tr a nspor ta tion, La nd Use a nd D e s ig n

Three approaches to transportation corridor projects

Begin Study Area

End Study Area

Corridor solutions nested in Land Use decisions

Context Sensitive Design Manual

Tr a nspor ta tion, La nd Use a nd D e s ig n

Origins and Destinations

Origin - single family residential areas and neighborhoods

Destination - Town Centers

Context Sensitive Design Manual

Tr a nspor ta tion, La nd Use a nd D e s ig n

Roadway Widening - Increasing roadway capacity

Sidewalk improvements - can free roadway capacity

On street parking - One component of total capacity

Context Sensitive Design Manual

Tr a nspor ta tion, La nd Use a nd D e s ig n

Speed vs. Capacity

Vehicular Level of Service

Context Sensitive Design Manual

Tr a nspor ta tion, La nd Use a nd D e s ig n

Context Sensitive Design Manual

Tr a nspor ta tion, La nd Use a nd D e s ig n

Context Sensitive Design Manual

Tr a nspor ta tion, La nd Use a nd D e s ig n

Context Sensitive Design Manual

Tr a nspor ta tion, La nd Use a nd D e s ig n

Evolution of the pedestrian friendly street-side retail

Context Sensitive Design Manual

Tr a nspor ta tion, La nd Use a nd D e s ig n

Primary I n t e r r e l a t i o n s h ip s : Tra n s p o rtatio n an d L and U s e

Transportation and Land Use

Same Lane Miles

Context Sensitive Design Manual

Tr a nspor ta tion, La nd Use a nd D e s ig n