Working Paper Series No. 45 - UvA · 2020. 9. 22. · Website: urbanstudies.uva.nl Email:...

Working Paper Series No. 45

Can emergency response measures trigger a transition to new transport systems? Exploring the role of “street experiments” from 55 US cities

Meredith Glaser & Kevin J. Krizek

©Meredith Glaser & Kevin J. Krizek

Centre for Urban Studies Working Paper September 2020 urbanstudies.uva.nl/workingpapers

http://urbanstudies.uva.nl/workingpapers

The CUS Working Paper Series is published electronically by the Centre for Urban Studies of the University of

Amsterdam. Working papers are in draft form and copyright is held by the author or authors of each working

paper. Papers may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Upon publication this version

will be removed from our website and replaced by a direct link to the official publication.

Editorial Committee CUS Working Paper Series

Prof. Luca Bertolini

Dr. Wouter van Gent

Prof. Dr. Rivke Jaffe

Dr. Virginie Mamadouh

Prof. Dr. Richard Ronald

Dr. Olga Sezneva

Prof. Dr. Tuna Tasan Kok

Prof. Dr. Justus Uitermark

Dr. Floris Vermeulen

Dr. Hebe Verrest

Dr. Darshan Vigneswaran

Centre for Urban Studies

University of Amsterdam

Nieuwe Achtergracht 166

1018 WV Amsterdam

The Netherlands

Website: urbanstudies.uva.nl

Email: [email protected]

The Centre for Urban Studies (CUS) houses the Urban Studies Research Priority Area, a strategic initiative of the

University of Amsterdam. It brings together urban scholars in sociology, geography, planning, political science,

economics, development studies and other disciplines. The Centre supports existing urban research programs

and stimulates interdisciplinary collaborative projects. With more than 50 academic staff and over 50 PhD

students, it is among the largest programmes of its kind in the world. The Centre works closely with both

academic and non-academic partners and has developed a variety of institutional relations with other leading

institutions. CUS is part of the AISSR, the Amsterdam Institute of Social Sciences Research, in the Faculty of

Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Amsterdam.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.aissr.uva.nl/

CUS Working Paper Series – WP No. 45 Centre for Urban Studies, University of Amsterdam

1

Can emergency response measures trigger a transition to new transport systems? Exploring the role of “street experiments” from 55 US cities

Meredith Glaser a & Kevin J. Krizek b

a University of Amsterdam, Department of Human Geography, Planning and International Development (GPIO)

Nieuwe Achtergracht 166, 1018TV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

b University of Colorado Boulder (USA), College of Environmental Design

Abstract

Transport planning and policy is increasingly being called to action in ways that differ from prior generations. Pressures call for

a character of city street that differs from those currently found in most auto-dominated urban environments. These pressures

were acutely felt with the escalation and disruption of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many cities responded by abruptly changing

the character of select streets. This paper argues that these “street experiments” fueled an opportunity to explore a transition to

paradigms that prioritize forms of sustainable mobility. We inventory street-focused emergency response measures from the 55

largest cities in the US and devised a rubric to systematically assess and locate characteristics of these measures that might

enable a transition. Results show that five “innovator” and some “early adopter” cities are using COVID conditions to test

new forms of streets and in some cases, street networks. Analysis indicate that these cities excelled in conveying a vision for

alternative future, articulating implementation pathways, leveraging political capacity, and circulating information. These and

other components could help seed a much-needed break-through in how city streets are used, designed, and standardized. The

paper contributes an important baseline of evidence on which future research efforts can build and provides empirical evidence

on early stages of the experimentation and transition process of urban mobility systems.

Keywords: city streets; transition experiments; policy learning; urban mobility; sustainable transportation

Introduction Transport planning and policy is increasingly called to action, summoned to respond to changing

transport technologies, environmental predicaments and radically altered conditions in society.

Many of the challenges play out in city streets. This space typically services movement in urban

areas, but also has to fulfill other key urban functions (von Schönfeld & Bertolini, 2017). For

almost a century now, the design and use for most streets have overwhelmingly served

automobiles. But with mounting pressures to transition towards sustainable transport, this

dominant mode of street planning is increasingly questioned (Banister, 2008). Transport planners

and decision makers have, for the past few decades been charged to support sustainable modes

like walking and cycling. Streets have been turned to grounds where emerging systems can offer

“smart” mobility, including ride-hailing, car-sharing, and delivery (e.g., post, courier, on-line retail


2

and eateries). Furthermore, innovative and human-scaled modes such as (electric) bicycles and

scooters yield even more claimants to a crowded, fast-moving stage. These trends cumulatively

underscore growing activities to consider how slower, human-scaled (and less automobile-focused)

activity plays out in streets, together with the concomitant and evolving design needs (Forsyth &

Krizek, 2011; Liu et al., 2018).

An additional breed of pressure was acutely felt in early 2020, prompted by COVID-19, as

municipal transport services were rapidly adjusting to meet yet other demands and threats. Due to

physical distancing and stay-at-home orders, some of the most apparent changes to transport

systems—for elected officials, planners, and the public at large—centered on repurposing city

streets; they involved prioritizing activities and travel options other than driving cars and taking

public transit.

A global trend of re-purposing streets swiftly ascended and circulated (social) media outlets. Many

cities couch these efforts as an experimental exploration of new mobility arrangements that could

extend beyond COVID-19. Some 600 cities world-wide (Combs, 2020) have now “bandwagoned”

(Pojani, 2020), installing temporary or “tactical” changes to the space allocation, use, or character

of city streets, often under the banner of “experimentation”.

A growing body of literature has documented a variety of urban initiatives and interventions that

experiment with changing elements of the built environment as a response to climate change (for

a review see Castán Broto & Bulkeley, 2013). One goal of urban experiments is to explore and test,

in a ‘real world’ setting, visions of an alternative future and to create space for learning, discourses,

and relations to emerge and evolve (Loorbach et al., 2010). We position “street experiments” as

one strain, defined as “an intentional, temporary change of the street use, regulation and/or form,

aimed at exploring systemic change in urban mobility” (Bertolini, 2020, p. 2). Little research has

enquired into the conditions such street experiments should meet in order to enable a

transformation – or at least a shift – of the mobility system (Bertolini, 2020) away from dominant

“regime” of auto-dependency (Loorbach, 2010) and towards “sustainable mobility”.

Recent academic discussions acknowledge the potential for emergency response street

experiments to enable active transportation, to facilitate physical activity, especially during stay-at-

home measures, and to mitigate noise, congestion and pollution from automobiles (Capolongo et

al., 2020; Lovelace et al., 2020; Musselwhite et al., 2020); however, there exists little detail or context

about how such novel policy options may evolve to create sustainable transport systems at various

levels, also beyond the COVID emergency.


3

In filling this lacuna, we inventory 55 of the largest U.S. cities and analyze how municipal

emergency response measures serve as potential triggers for transition in sustainable urban

mobility. We lean on sustainability transitions theories (Grin et al., 2010) and emerging literature

on street experiments (Bertolini, 2020; von Schönfeld & Bertolini, 2017) to explore the research

question: How can COVID-19 emergency response “street experiments” be relied on to trigger transformative

change in urban mobility? We operationalize this question into three sub-questions:

(1) Which cities have implemented emergency response street experiments and to what scale?

(2) What dimensions of transformative change are present, absent, or ambiguous in the street experiments?

(3) How do groups of cities compare to each other with regards to the potential for transition?

To explore these questions, we build and apply a conceptual methodological tool – a rubric – to

systematically assess and locate characteristics of response measures that have the potential to

enable transformative change. Our research contributions are threefold. We first establish a

baseline of evidence on which future research efforts can build upon—important as increasing

signs suggest more changes along these lines. Second, we create and test a framework to study

street experiments across multiple locations, a tool needed in this line of research (Sengers et al.,

2019), and it is open for continued testing and adaptation. Third, we provide empirical evidence

on early stages of the experimentation and transition process.

In the sections following, we clarify the theoretical foundation of this work by drawing on

transitions literature. We then provide an overview of street changes induced by COVID, followed

by a description of research approach. In Findings, we report the results from the inventory and

rubric analysis, exploring our research questions stepwise. In the Discussion, we propose

implications for policy and practice and close with directions for future research.

Transitions toward sustainable urban mobility Calls for deep transport reform are many (Banister, 2008; Bertolini et al., 2008; Willson, 2001), yet

breakthroughs are few and far between. The built environment is mature. Deep-rooted cultural

preferences are embedded. These factors condition various mobility futures which remain

unresolved (Ashmore et al., 2018). The battery of approaches to nudge practices towards

sustainable mobility are known, such as integrating land use and transport or furnishing more


4

infrastructures for cycling, walking and transit infrastructures (Banister, 2008). Yet, many barriers

thwart implementation efforts.

One acute challenge in this landscape stems from a need to cultivate support or acceptance for the

types of interventions that would potentially impact a breakthrough—to carve new pathways that

would enable organizational, political and public support (Stead, 2008); lacking such, progress will

be limited (Banister, 2005). Bold narratives are needed if cities are to transition to sustainable

mobility (Holden et al., 2019).

Strategies that fall under the banner of “transition management” (Kemp et al., 2007, 2017;

Loorbach, 2010; Nevens et al., 2013; Roorda et al., 2014) helpfully provide a frame through which

to view progress towards transitioning to sustainable practices. Transition management is “a

governance approach aimed to create space for new paradigms and practices” (Roorda et al., 2014,

p. 2). Through a co-creative process, “agents of change” are mobilized through long-term

visioning, system analysis, and implementation through small but radical steps, directed at reflexive

learning. Reflexive processes find ways to question underlying values, assumptions, and habits in

order to more deeply learn about the nature of societal, institutional and organizational structures

(Kemp et al., 2007).

A key component of transition management strategies is transition experiments: “short-term

actions through which alternative structures, cultures, and practices are explored” (Roorda et al.,

2014, p. 32). Assessing current emergency measures in city streets as transition experiments can

help understand which conditions might have transformative potential. We thus situate streets that

have changed, propelled by responses to COVID, as the object of study, arguing that actions to

re-prioritize and re-allocate street space away from automobiles and towards active modes triggers

larger socio-technical transitions and experimenting with their character is one means to that end.

One approach to address the need for cultivating acceptance for alternative mindsets is through

streets experiments. We ask: could street experiments facilitate such a breakthrough—one that

could help clear pathways to land support in ways needed to match the scale of change required?

Emergency response street changes as “transition experiments” Streets represent a critical agent in any type of transport transition. They are governed by local

municipalities and range of activities permitted on city streets represent vital components of cities

that local governments can control and change. Furthermore, an effective level to design and

implement sustainability strategies addressing climate change is the local level (Bulkeley & Betsill,

2005; Castán Broto & Bulkeley, 2013). Decisions affecting how streets are used and which modes


5

of transport to prioritize are important, and affect the onset of standards1. Calls for new forms of

governance that address the needs of changing the character of local streets are becoming availed

(Glaser, Krizek & King, in press).

Fully recognizing that the amount of street changes induced by COVID-19 were paled relative to

the total length of all streets in cities, it is difficult to identify an acute time period in the past

decades where so much change to streets happened so quickly in cities of all sizes around the

globe. We argue that the conditions presented by COVID-19, generally, provided a springboard

to potentially transition toward sustainable practices. In other words, these “transition

experiments” can be used to explore how well alternative structures, cultures, and practices might

gain traction (for an overview, see Sengers et al, 2019). They provide a powerful means to rethink

the use, design and purpose of city streets while simultaneously allowing the transport planning

process to recognize and define (somehow “re-understand”) new values and meanings that have

emerged through the process.

Experiments provide a forum for “learning-by-shifting” thereby generating new insights and

providing an evidence-base to build legitimacy—all while possibly cultivating political and

community support (Smith & Raven, 2012). They may embody transformational power to embrace

“good” changes which work towards normative societal goals. Experiments typically begin in a

certain, bounded context and through periodical rounds of assessment and adjustment, eventually

leading to replication and scale-up in other and more contexts (Sengers et al., 2019).

We argue that municipal response measures represent transition experiments of a particular sort:

“street experiments”. Learning the characteristics of these experiments could move the needle

towards intended transition to achieving sustainability. We aim to understand links between

broader, city-wide mobility change and these experimental policies, however permanent or scaled-

up they become. Considering that much of the literature acknowledges constraints of city-wide,

mainstream policy, financial, legal, and organizational frameworks, these response measures, at a

minimum, allow the professional and research community to identify barriers, tensions and

challenges others have identified (von Schönfeld & Bertolini, 2017).

Experimenting with streets is not a novel idea. Yet, few empirical studies exist. A recent review

found only 25 empirical articles on the topic (Bertolini, 2020) and provided a typology of street

experiments.2 The review pertinently concludes that no studies that have attempted to illuminate

1 Vega-Barachowitz, D. (2013). Changing the DNA of City Streets: NACTO's Urban Street Design Guide and the New City Street Design Paradigm. Institute of Transportation Engineers. ITE Journal, 83(12). 2 For example: re-marking streets, re-purposing on-street car parking spaces, or re-purposing sections of streets.


6

the scope of policy or planning activities that address such experiments, nor how street

experiments might trigger or scale-up transformative practices. One reason cited for this gap is

that systematic ways to measure such transformation process, particularly across multiple locations

or varietals of experiments, have not yet been developed. To illustrate an assessment framework

model for how street experiments might realize an ability to trigger systemic change in urban

mobility, Bertolini (2020) explains five criteria by which experiments must fulfill (Table 1), derived

from the transition management literature (Nevens et al., 2013; Roorda et al., 2014). These

characteristics inform our methodological approach, explained in section 5.

COVID-induced street experiments In mid-March of 2020, with stay-at-home orders in effect owing to COVID-19, city streets across

the globe dramatically changed character. Mobility rhythms slowed as global public health

institutions recommended maintaining six-feet of distance to decrease transmission of the virus,

and public transit, ride-sharing, car-pooling, and other close-contact ways of travel drastically

reduced in use and service. This disproportionately effects “essential workers” continuing to travel

to work, especially those with unreliable access to a private vehicle, such as low-wage or

undocumented workers. Those still able to work from home, or traveling only for basic needs,

seriously reduced the demand for particularly long distance, motorized travel.

With vehicle traffic and public transit at their lowest levels in decades, the most valuable

component of a city’s transport system, its streets, lied dormant. City officials initially and

Table 1: Key criteria for transition experiments to trigger systemic

change

Criteria Key questions

Radical Are the practices foregrounded by the experiment fundamentally different from dominant practices?

Challenge-driven Is the experiment a step toward a potentially long-term change pathway to address a societal challenge?

Feasible Is it possible to implement the experiment in the short-term and with readily available resources?

Strategic Can the experiment generate lessons about how to reach the envisioned fundamental changes? Can the agents needed for such changes access these lessons?

Communicative & mobilizing

Can the experiment reach and possibly mobilize the local and broader public?

Source: Bertolini (2020)


7

increasingly leveraged emergency powers and turned to streets as a space asset with currently

underutilized public health benefits. Almost overnight, the purpose, use, and character of select

streets was altered by, for example, severely limiting car traffic on those thoroughfares or

implementing “pop-up bike lanes.” These “emergency response measures” allowed citizens

outside their homes, to walk, bike, exercise, travel to and from places of work and “essential”

businesses, while maintaining distance from others. Urgent conditions prompted municipal

transport planners to consider, and the license to enact, initiatives typically reserved for

hypothetical situations.

As stay-at-home orders relaxed, plans to aid in the economic recovery required transport planners

to connect design solutions with specific problems. As commuters gradually (physically) return to

offices and with transit capacity severely limited, many cities recognize their spatial inability to

absorb an influx of private automobiles. Compounding the difficulty, social distancing measures

require more space than before the crisis to allow physical access for customers to queue, enter or

exit shops and services along street corridors. Again, timely adjustments to the transport system

were needed and pressures mounted to find space on streets to allow movement via means other

than cars and transit. In the immediate response to the pandemic, needed actions in many cities

mostly point in the same direction: dedicate more space to facilitate the movement of human-

scaled modes.

Research approach and methodology Sample

We explored our research questions by analyzing the content of public documents which described

the response measures. We used the 55 largest city regions (by population) in the United States as

our sample.3 We first inventoried response measures from the city regions through a systematic

process to cull cities that had response measures, which served as documentation for the analysis

stage.4 Given our investigation’s orientation—streets—we focused on efforts from cities that

3 We started with the 50 most-populated cities, according to 2019 US Census estimates, a parameter used by other transportation policy researchers (Dill et al., 2017). However, we noticed several significant cities or urban regions eschewed this list due to multiple jurisdictions in close proximity. We therefore chose to compare this list with the 50 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA). When overlaid, five city regions were added. In total, we compile measures from 55 US city regions. All data can be made available upon request to the authors. 4 Through extensive Internet research, municipal documentation of response measures and documentation were selected based on availability, including press releases, planning documents, and date-stamped webpages on city-owned and operated websites (i.e., DPW, DOT, Mayor’s office, etc.). A document folder for each city was created and populated with PDFs of all available material. Material not collected included sources from 3rd party blogs, advocacy or activist organizations, or (social) media. Documentation was collected (downloaded) between June 29 and July 6, 2020. A second check for updates and response measures from all 55 cities was conducted on July 17, 2020. No new cities were added; however, 12 cities had published updates to their programs. This material was downloaded and included for the final analysis stage. Launch dates of the measures ranged from March 20, 2020


8

change how they allocate street space—use and character—as opposed to measures like push-

button actuation or altering public transit services.5 An inventory of responses and documentation

for 30 cities proceeded to the next stage of analysis (see Appendix A).

Rubric

The manner in which municipalities documented and publicized their street changes provided data

to understand how a “communicative policy act” has both “symbolic meaning and [helps] convey

messages” (Norton, 2008, p. 433). Analyzing the content of transport planning documents has a

strong history, both on municipal level (Bista et al., 2020; Norton, 2008) and state levels (Dill et

al., 2017). We extended the content to analyze to include a wide variety of documentation (i.e.,

press releases, date-stamped webpages) to capture emerging street planning processes and the

mindsets behind the measures, ultimately to shed light on transition qualities.

Content analysis typically involves developing and administering an evaluation protocol, referred

to here as a “rubric,” to interpret and assess text from documents. Specifically, we developed a

rubric to discern the extent to which municipal response measures met five defining criteria of

“transition experiments”, as argued by Bertolini (2020) and presented earlier (Table 1), necessary

for street experiments to trigger systemic change. However, to our knowledge, within the urban

and transport planning or sustainability transitions literature, there are no validated evaluation

instruments to measure this. We therefore extend these five criteria to include elements derived

from theories of transition management (Loorbach, 2010; Roorda et al., 2014), transportation

governance (Marsden & Reardon, 2017), the shift to sustainable mobility (Banister, 2008), and

current research on street experiments (Bertolini, 2020), as described earlier.

The rubric we designed operationalized each criterion through a series of key questions, which

were then further specified into discrete items, totaling 44 non-text-based items. To strengthen the

rubric’s reliability to glean salient factors, we solicited its review from three scholars in the fields

of transitions and transport policy. Incorporating their feedback, the final rubric and theoretical

guidance are presented in Appendix C.

The two authors plus two researchers piloted the rubric on two cities (Seattle, WA, and

Washington, D.C.). Unanticipated issues in applying the rubric, including data interpretation and

(Philadelphia) to June 17, 2020 (Houston); two-thirds of the sample (20 cities) initiated measures between April 15-May 31, 2020 5 While other databases exist (i.e., Combs, 2020; NACTO, 2020), they are populated by crowd-sourced means, often with secondary and tertiary sources (i.e., media and Twitter feeds) which limits their reliability and were thus not included. Additionally, the diversity of scope and scale of the measures listed in these databases leads to comparability challenges.


9

data entry processes, were brought to our attention and resolved through further clarification of

decision rules. Two researchers (coders) continued assessing the remaining cities, providing two

responses per item per city.

Coders assessed items on a quantitative scale of 0 to 2, an approach borrowed from at least two

other studies using a similar research design (Dill et al., 2017; Norton, 2008). If an item was

described in neutral language or plainly suggested, it was marked “1” (mentioned), whereas

descriptions that included elaboration or encouragement of the item were marked “2” (strong

evidence). If an item was absent, a “0” was assigned. Using the rubric, researchers then read the

documents and coded or “scored” the items, directly from the text, using the numerical scale. The

coders did so for all 44 items for each of the 30 cities. Their responses reached agreement of 80%

or above on 42 items.6 The research team decided to remove two items as they yielded low

agreement levels (30-49%). The coders also included text-based rationales to support their score

which were used to qualitatively inform the analysis. See Appendix B for summary statistics of

coded items.

Data analysis

Summing the possible four points for each item (two per coder) provides initial results among

cities which are aggressively enacting change versus not, and those in between. No single approach

can provide complete guidance here; however, given that the sample’s total scores naturally divided

into quartiles, we found value in borrowing classifications used by Rogers (1962, 2010) to

differentiate the groups. As such, quartiles were labeled “innovators”, “early adopters”, “early

majority,” “late majority” and “laggards” (Rogers, 1962, 2010).7

We then assessed similarities and differences not only among the quartiles but also within each

dimension. Using the quartiles developed through the sums from the rubric scores, each dimension

was averaged in order to compare between quartiles and dimensions. We sought answers to

analytical questions such as, how do “radical” characteristics of the measures implemented by the

innovators compare to other quartiles? How do scores on the “radical” dimension compare to

scores on other dimensions, e.g. “feasible”? Given our intent to contextualize this research against

6 Inter-coder agreement for an item was defined as follows: if item coding entries were scored 0-0, 1-1, 2-2, and 1-2 or 2-1. Acceptable inter-coder agreement across an entire item was defined as reaching ≥ 80%. Originally, fourteen fields yielded agreement levels of 50-79%. The coding instructions on these fields were modified to improve agreement. Instances of disagreement (0-2) on these fields were discussed and agreed upon by three coders, resulting in 100% agreement on a second subset of the data. 7 Following Rogers (1962, 2010), we classify the 25 cities found, at the time of investigation, not to be pursing measures as “laggards”. Additionally, Rogers’ theory of innovation diffusion defines time as critical independent variable. For the purpose of this investigation, we consider the chronicle of events from March-July 2020, thus quartile classifications do not reflect the actual launch date of the measures.


10

the broader aim of transitions, we sought to examine gaps and nuances at scales within each city’s

transport planning effort.

Findings Which cities have implemented emergency response street experiments and to what scale?

Figure 1 depicts the geographical distribution of the 30 cities we found to have implemented

response measures that, to some extent, alter the use and character of some city streets. Five cities

were deemed innovators; eleven early adopters; six early majority; and eight late majority. Our

sample demonstrates a limited range of response measures8 and here we focus on the most

common measure all 30 cities have implemented, to varying scopes and scales.

The most common response measure describes a type of street experiment featuring an “open

street” or “Ciclovia” application (see Kuhlberg et al., 2014; Sarmiento et al., 2017); these were

often labeled “Slow Streets”, “Healthy Streets”, “Safe Streets”, or “Shared Streets”. In its original

conceptualization, “open streets” forbid automobile traffic on an designated length of a street or

corridor for a predetermined and limited amount of time (i.e., one particular day or event, or a

series of a non-consecutive single days) and instead people walking, bicycling, or using other

human-scale, active modes use the entire width of the roadbed. It is common to use of barriers or

barricades at intersections, accompanied by signs.

However, the “slow streets” measure differs from the original “open streets” concept in several

critical regards. One, most describe the measure as a “soft closure” – that is, automobile traffic of

local residents only may proceed, while with original open streets and ciclovias all motorized traffic are

banned. (In both cases, emergency vehicles and deliveries were excepted.) Through signs and other

indicators, it is suggested that cars drive slowly (less than 20mph) and to expect people walking

and bicycling and using other active modes in the street. An additional difference is that several

streets are included in the intervention, compared to one section of a street, as is the case with

classic open streets. Furthermore, duration is a key difference. As Bertolini (2020) found, open

streets are often promoted “events” with limited duration (typically one day), whereas the “slow

street” experiments in our sample were lasting many weeks, even months (at time of writing). In

essence, while closure to motorized traffic might be less extreme than classic examples of open

8 Few cities are implementing “pop-up bike lanes” (i.e., Boston and Austin) and “extended sidewalks” (i.e., Chicago, Washington, D.C.), through removal of on-street parking. A few cities have published a comprehensive “transportation recovery strategy” detailing a variety of programs and policies in response to COVID-19 (i.e., Portland, OR; San Francisco, CA; Washington, D.C.).


11

streets in the US (limiting and slowing down rather than outright eliminating motorized traffic),

both spatial extension and, especially, duration are more substantial.

Figure 1: Geographical distribution of cities implementing emergency responses that

address changes to streets.

Our analysis found different approaches for how the street changes were implemented. One

approach was an application- or permit-based program, usually through a council-approved

resolution (i.e., Dallas, Kansas City, Austin, Missouri, Long Beach, Los Angeles). This approach

largely requires resident volunteers to initiate, apply, implement, and monitor street changes. In

the case of Dallas and Kansas City, municipalities partnered with non-state actors (i.e., non-profit

Better Block Foundation) to support with design and materials. Alternatively, efforts are

shepherded by the municipality, usually by first “piloting” a small number of streets and then

escalating efforts to more locations (i.e., Chicago, Portland, Seattle, Oakland). Many cities’

programs fell in between the two strands, such as New York where community organizations

manage some of their local open streets.

It was common for the municipality to describe specific criteria to prioritize or nominate slow

streets. Prevalent criteria included low-volume neighborhood streets, identified routes in the city’s

bicycle master plan, in higher density areas, and streets leading to commercial or transit corridors.

In some cases, additional equity criteria were used, for example, areas lacking significant access to

parks and open space, sidewalks and/or bikeways, areas with lower car-ownership rates, and in


12

rare cases, areas of populations with disadvantaged health outcomes, communities of color and

poverty.

Which dimensions of transformative change are present, absent or ambiguous?

To explore this question, we probe within the five dimensions. Here we do not distinguish between

the quartiles but rather aim to discern which characteristics, among the full sample, are present,

absent or ambiguous.

Radical

Half of cities reference a desire to achieve a future state of streets (in rare cases, the entire city)

that differs from current conditions. Of these, some use vibrant phrases to express ambitions to

“re-imagine”, “transform”, and “envision” different purposes of streets, a common starting point

in the process of transition management (Nevens et al., 2013). Many describe how streets are

valuable public spaces and that streets can serve a range of purposes other than moving cars. For

example, Pittsburgh’s program is notably ambitious, claiming to “create a new norm” by

“(re)balancing vehicle space and people space.”

Roughly half of cities reference a possibility or current planning to scale up the measures to more

than a few segments of streets, to distribute across multiple neighborhoods, and some to the entire

city. Few however refer to how the selected streets or street changes serve a vision of equity for

those in most need and even fewer reference how streets chosen might connect, for example, to

each other or to destinations, to form a network. Only select cities explicitly couch the experiments

in an intent to shift from motorized to active transport.

Challenge-driven

All cities acknowledge the general goal of their program, such as that provided by Salt Lake City,

“to provide additional public spaces for people to recreate and easily practice distancing on City

streets, while relieving pressure from crowded streets, trails and parks”. However, a majority (93%)

also underscore benefits outside of preventing the spread of COVID-19, such as increasing

physical activity with links to enhanced mental health and well-being, and, rarely, to more quickly

achieve other economic, transport or climate goals.

Half embed the measures into broader existing plans for sustainability goals, demonstrating an

awareness of persistent challenges and potential synergies. Most commonly cited is the city’s

bicycle master plan and strategic mobility/transport plans, or an existing commitment to Vision


13

Zero. Portland carefully describes how their program seamlessly fits into numerous existing

municipal plans.

Many indicate on-going engagement with elected or appointed officials, commonly the Mayor (also

city council or commissioners, and other stakeholder organizations). Fewer engage cross-

departmentally (i.e., with parks and recreation and/or public health departments). But from the

public documents, especially press releases, some cities articulate the joint efforts between political

offices, transport departments, and often community- or state-level stakeholders; however, it

remains ambiguous whether this reflects prior relationships or new partnerships.

Feasible

While nearly all cities mention a broad goal of their program, only two explain objectives for their

programs that are specific and relevant, but less so measurable and achievable, and only 40% of

the sample reference an implementation schedule (i.e., phases or stages with a timeline).

Surprisingly few cities acknowledge barriers to implementation, including limited staff time and

availability of materials; however, most of these cities mention that they are dealing with the

barriers through volunteer recruitment and expedited or makeshift materials. Oakland, Seattle, and

San Francisco cite limited staff time for public engagement at the beginning of the programs due

to the urgency of the situation. Barriers commonly seen in sustainable transport literature are

generally not discussed, such as budget, regulatory or legal issues, community support and political

capacity.

On the other hand, results show that the cities have garnered strong political and at least moderate

community support. A majority of the sample (70%) showed robust evidence of support and

engagement from elected and appointed city officials, commonly the Mayor, but also council

members. The basis of their support varied from economic recovery of local businesses, mental

and physical health of residents, equity, promotion of active mobility, and environmental benefits.

Nearly one-third demonstrate efforts to solicit involvement and support from various community

or advocate groups, especially in the business community but also school districts and public health

organizations. A majority of cities seek involvement from residents (e.g., through volunteer

recruitment) yet few demonstrate resident support of the programs (e.g., results of satisfaction

surveys).

Strategic

The documentation reviewed for this study demonstrated little evidence that actions were pursued

strategically, with long-term learning in mind; this is possibly due to the short and compromised


14

time period. Many mention monitoring and evaluation of their programs, but seldom elaborate on

these efforts through descriptions of indicators or outcome measures to assess or references to

data collection processes. We found limited and mixed evidence of the interventions anchored in

reflexive learning processes. For example, Chicago informs that the transport department will

“collect data”, “gather community feedback”, and “conduct observations”. Oakland offers a

comprehensive system to incorporate feedback, linked to a live, web-based platform for data

visualization of use and perceptions of the program. While impressive, details including what type

of methods they use, how often, or indicators under assessment remain obscure.

Furthermore, while many indicate ambition to scale-up the street changes to more and other

locations, (through “adjustments” and “iterations”) in the very short-term, aspirations or the

potential to make the program and its street changes permanent were less common. Seldom do

cities mention steps or pathways to achieve scale-up or permanence. However, some cities mention

that community support and acceptance will drive future decisions of the programs (i.e., Austin,

Oakland, Portland, Salt Lake City, Seattle). We found no concrete descriptions, from any city, of

how evaluative efforts will feed into long-term policy development.

Mobilizing and Communicative

Several cities devise and disseminate media and/or communication campaigns for the program,

stimulating explicit interaction, conversation, and local public participation. These efforts act to

publicize the benefits, garner support, and gain feedback—some offer a hashtag to aid in posting

to social media (i.e., #DallasSlowStreets, #OaklandSlowStreets) or printed posters in different

languages.

Many cities promote resident engagement with the program via online surveys, often containing

only 2-3 broad questions to, for example, suggest new locations (i.e., Austin, Baltimore) and report

experiences (i.e., Charlotte, Dallas). Other cities’ surveys contain detailed questions (20-30) about

specific locations, use, mode choice, perceptions, attitudes and suggestions to improve the

program (i.e., Oakland, Seattle, Portland), also tracking demographics and location of residence.

Some cities maintain a blog function and offer on-line discussion formats (i.e., Oakland, Seattle).

Oakland was the sole city to offer digital meetings for the program and encouraged participation.

We found strong evidence that all of the cities’ programs received local media attention; some on

the national scale (i.e., Pittsburg, Los Angeles); and only 3 on an international scale (New York,

Oakland, Seattle).


15

How do different groups of cities compare to each other with regards to the potential for transition?

Figure 2 compares the five criteria across the four quartiles, from which we can interpret salient

patterns and characteristics. Cities that scored highest among the sample (“innovators”) included

Oakland (CA), Portland (OR), Seattle (WA), New York (NY), and San Francisco (CA). Most

striking perhaps is that innovators achieved nearly 60% of possible points in the radical dimension,

54% of possible points in communicative and mobilizing dimension, and 52% of possible points

in feasible dimension.

Clearly, compared to other quartiles, ‘innovators’ excelled in conveying a vision for alternative future

(radical), articulating an implementation pathway and leveraging political capacity (feasible), and

circulating information (communicative/mobilizing). Among these dimensions, innovators often

scored on rubric items that had otherwise very low frequency, such as acknowledgements of streets

as valuable public space and a desire to shift from motorized to active transportation. These cities

also wrote compelling descriptions of how equity deserves a specific and central role in the

program. Noticeably, programs from these cities also attracted the attention of national and

international media.

Figure 2: Comparison of dimensions across quartiles.


16

The ‘early adopters’ (11 cities) demonstrate lower scores than innovators, with a few exceptions –

Boston, Providence and Nashville score nearly as high as innovators on radical but considerably

lower in all other dimensions. Early adopters often scored the lower-frequency items but did not

regularly elaborate and rarely achieved points for: vision, scale and permanence, equity, or

embedding in long-term plans. But several compensate with strong evidence of support from

elected officials, residents or community groups. For example, local council resolutions expedited

permitting for Dallas and San Antonio (and Kansas City) to create programs. To manage the

constraint of limited staff time (cited as a barrier to implementation), Dallas and Kansas City use

a third-party, non-profit vendor to support volunteering efforts.

The ‘early majority’ (6 cities), i.e., New Orleans, Kansas City, Salt Lake City, accrued points more

evenly across the criteria and little variation between the cities. The documentation reviewed for

these cities contained brief and general explanations. Many of the programs are volunteer- or

application-based, so even though some scored on “aspirations to scale up,” these programs did

not address a network approach to street changes, rarely embedding the program into existing

efforts. Furthermore, as two of the first US cities to launch their programs (early April 2020), Salt

Lake City and Minneapolis programs circulated in national and international media, increasing the

group’s overall communication and mobilization score.

The ‘late majority’ (8 cities) are absent from many aspects among all dimensions. Descriptions of

programs offer minimal, often ambiguous, sketches of what the cities are doing. These cities were

rarely coded for vision, scale (mostly occurring on a single block of a longer street), or evidence of

support. Many score only on the few highest-frequency items, such as (briefly) acknowledging

benefits outside of preventing the spread of COVID.

Limitations In light of COVID conditions, this research effort was limited in several ways. Efforts to assess

on-the-ground and evolving policy solutions are constrained by the temporal question of “when”

to measure progress. Results show that many cities have not (yet) published official documents;

rather, they use other more flexible means of articulating and disseminating efforts (i.e., their

websites, blog functions, press releases). In this sense, timing of both the publications and our

search for them crucially either included or excluded them in our analysis. To cope with this

limitation, we performed a second search for measures among all cities to validate that the most

updated documentation was to be included. Many of the cities we captured through our inventory

continue to evolve their programs and publish updated information; cities not included in this


17

analysis may have started efforts. Nonetheless, our data has enough variance to demonstrate

breadth and relevance.

Documents that were published by municipalities provided the data and the prism for this effort

(i.e., as opposed to blog posts prepared by journalists). The information contained in these

published documents may or may not be fully representative of what is happening on the ground.

Content of the material reflects often unknown authors, their individual abilities in communicating

the actions, knowledge, and capacities, thereby restricting our ability to fully eliminate any biases

in how the documented were selected and what they reported (Yin, 2003), nor is it our role to pass

normative judgement on the efforts of those who are or are not implementing measures.

Evaluation instruments, such as the rubric developed for this study, hold the potential to

oversimplify complex phenomena. The street experiment dimensions we intended to capture

through discrete scales of items (e.g., radical, challenge-driven) may have been abbreviated in their

accuracy or precision (Gerring, 2001). Scales intending to measure process, on-the-ground

activities, objectives, scale, support, and involvement of actors, can overlook contextual

conditions. For example, our rubric did not include metrics for analyzing pre-COVID social,

political, organizational, and environmental characteristics, histories, and dynamics.9 We

acknowledge our efforts in this respect hold potential to be further refined. We intend for the

concepts that we operationalized to stimulate further dialogue, derivation, and application. Our

multiple-case overview provides a baseline and benchmark for such further, in-depth and case-

specific enquiries.

Implications and Discussion “Overall, the mobility sub-committee saw this time of crisis also as a moment of opportunity. It has been an unintentional demonstration of traffic reductions, shared streets and human mobility. It has demonstrated that we should not have an objective to just get back to where we once were in terms of sustainable mobility, but we can and should exceed it.” – Pittsburgh Streets & Mobility Task Force (May 2020).

“Crises create not only severe devastation, but a unique opportunity for systemic change and fundamental re-invention. In normal times, such fundamental change would require long-term strategic efforts as well as major investments of time and resources without guaranteed success. Crises, however, disrupt the status quo in basic ways allowing for new assumptions, methods and organizational values to emerge.” – Seeger et al. (2005) p. 92.

9 For example, empirics on sustainability highlight the collaborative governance structures cities such as Seattle (Mercier et al., 2016) and the existing efforts of cities like Portland and New York to build cycling infrastructure (Pucher & Buehler, 2016).


18

Seminal research on disaster and crises recovery in urban settings has drawn attention to these

events as peculiar periods of time; not only causing devastation, crises expose existing system

vulnerabilities that are often exacerbated by the pressure and urgency of emergency situations

(Berke et al., 1993; Nakagawa & Shaw, 2004; Seeger et al., 2005; Smith & Wenger, 2019). As Seeger

et al. (2005) and others point out above, the process of recovery cultivates “re-invention” of

assumptions, methods, and values. Disaster scholars have compared this period to Kingdon’s

(1995) “window of opportunity”, where separate streams of policies, problems, and politics

favorably come together and, as the above example from Pittsburgh can attest, create

unprecedented space for reassessment, realignment and restructuring of priorities. The “window

of opportunity” represents a moment not only to rebuild, but, in a normative understanding, to

eclipse the status quo – to trigger systemic change.

The questions guiding this paper are therefore highly relevant: can emergency response street

experiments be relied on to transform – or at least transition – urban mobility? Our findings

highlight several salient governance conditions that in such urgent situations compel capacity and

willingness to progress towards transformation that otherwise may not be present. Under this

larger umbrella, these three conditions warrant further consideration, especially in a post-COVID

era about how rapid and mobile policy transfer can help transform transport in cities.

An accelerated policy transfer process

Our results point to initiatives that change the character of streets as highly mobile policies, capable

of accelerating the typical slow pace of public administrations. In a short time period

(approximately three months), staff from 30 U.S. municipalities learned, gained support of and

translated a concept to their own unique urban context, suggesting ‘successful’ policy transfer – a

process where ideas from one community are borrowed and applied in another (Dolowitz &

Marsh, 2000). Building on this, we saw several geographical clusters of cities that implemented

programs with similar characteristics, i.e., Dallas, Austin, and Kansas City employ the application-

based program partnering with a non-profit for operations support. Dallas’ case specifically

acknowledges how their program is based on these cities’ efforts. But are these cases of policy

replication, diffusion, transfer, or bandwagoning?

The results presented in this study suggest these cities did not follow the traditional approach of

policy transfer: they did not gain “first-hand experience” of the policy (Rose, 1993), for example

by traveling to a city with a successful program, a common practice among transport professionals

(Glaser et al., 2020), and they likely did not spend weeks vetting its applicability. Research has

shown that direct policy transfer rarely occurs and “no studies have thoroughly linked policy


19

outcomes to learning” (Marsden, p. 71). It appears these initiatives advanced to the top ranks of

“best practice” – even without concrete evaluation or monitoring results. The process of searching

for and validating “best practices” supports policy learning processes and is linked to the transfer

of “evidence-based policies” (Blake et al., in press; Stead, 2016). Therefore, we surmise that various

policy learning processes, including collective deliberation (Hall, 1993), quickly took shape and,

contrary to empirics, indeed resulted in a policy outcome – a street experiment.

These results leave room for further understanding. What underlying conditions, beyond the

urgency of COVID, allowed for such a rapid acceleration of the typically lengthy public policy

process? What processes were perhaps prioritized over others? Of course, further investigation

could helpfully unravel these processes, and we expect methods from policy studies to be helpful

here (Pojani, 2020).

Leveraging existing efforts and cultivating support

The stark differences between the five ‘adopter’ groups suggest that underlying conditions might

have helped numerous voices involved in the charge to sustainable mobility to realize a “window

of opportunity”. Specifically, innovative and early adopter cities likely benefited by situating their

initiatives in prior or on-going work. Oakland’s “Slow Street” program, for example, strongly

leveraged their recent bicycle plan, which was comprehensively updated and unanimously adopted

by City Council in July, 2019 (City of Oakland). Seattle encased their initiative into the existing

Neighborhood Greenways program, a principle component of their Bicycle Master Plan, approved

with support from the Mayor in 2018 (City of Seattle). Pittsburgh, an early adopter, launched their

program in tandem with the Pittsburgh Bike(+) Master Plan, approved with Mayor support in June

2020 (City of Pittsburgh). Additional cities reference their commitment to “Vision Zero”, a policy

platform aiming to reduce traffic deaths.10 Methodological strategies to control for such factors

may prove useful in subsequent impact or outcome analyses.

Embedding the initiatives in prior or on-going work also meant that innovator and early adopter

cities perhaps leveraged active relationships and an organizational culture supportive of new ideas,

important as an organization’s capacity to learn and innovate depends on these contextual factors

(Argyris & Schön, 1978; Glaser et al., 2019). Further investigation could more deeply assess the

extent to which cities were already experimenting or exemplify characteristics of a “learning

10 For in-depth explanation, see Naumann, R. B., Heiny, S., Evenson, K. R., LaJeunesse, S., Cooper, J. F., Doggett, S., & Marshall, S. W. (2019). Organizational networks in road safety: Case studies of U.S. Vision Zero cities. Traffic Injury Prevention, 20(4), 378–385.


20

organization” and are now moving forward more quickly. This relationship between high-scoring

cities and on-going work could be the result of greater pressure to be at the forefront.

Understanding cultures of street planning, prior to COVID-19, do not undermine our findings,

we simply point to the value of controlling for existing conditions in unravelling the effects of any

one initiative.

Steering through strategic learning and capacity building

Recognizing the binding time constraints and pressures that come with implementing a response

measure, an important finding stems from the limited evidence to engage in strategic learning and

evaluation—efforts to more deeply embed these experiments into long-term thinking. We found

rare evidence of evaluation plans, measurable program objectives, or descriptions of pathways

leading to permanent, city-wide change. None of the cities explained how evaluation efforts would

feed into long-term policy development. Overall, the “strategic” dimension was that with the

lowest score.

Earlier, we posed the question of which governance processes were perhaps prioritized or

skimmed in order to achieve implementation of their programs. Transitions literature echoes

eminent urban planning scholars who express the importance of widespread consensus for

building a long-term vision coupled with short-term objectives (Healey, 1998; Innes, 1996;

Loorbach, 2010). In this regard, the experiments do not seem to be embedded in a broader

transition strategy. This line of thought would ask planners and officials involved what can the

initiatives learn in terms of structural change and how can the initiative work in the medium to

long term?

While strategic learning was perhaps bated, on the other hand, our findings also exemplify

characteristics of a capacity-building process. Capacity-building is often defined by collaborative

efforts, especially among leadership and influential group members (Glaser et al., 2019). For many

cities, the wide variety of actors involved in the rapid implementation of a single initiative, showed

myriad city departments involved beyond Public Works or Department of Transportation, such

as public health, parks and recreation, police, school districts. Prominent across all adopter groups

were efforts to engage and acquire support from elected officials. Externally, community partners

we would expect to support such initiatives were (sometimes) noted, such as bicycle advocacy

organizations; additionally, relevantly, stakeholders that may be considered less traditional in street

planning efforts were also solicited and supported the measures, such as the restaurant, retail and

business communities (i.e., in Chicago and San Francisco).


21

A variety of questions emerge from these findings: Were these measures used as strategic

opportunities to foster new partnerships with stakeholders or decision makers? Did perhaps some

cities benefit from entrepreneurial employees, also called “inside activists” (Olsson & Hysing,

2012) or other “policy entrepreneurs” (Kingdon, 1965), working within the context of

municipalities to advance new rules, protocol and expectations to guide how street space is used?

Understanding answers to such questions could illuminate patterns of critical actors, networks, or

collaborations that expedited capacity-building processes that may propel change beyond the

pandemic.

Conclusions and future directions This research analyzed emergency response street experiments from the 55 largest U.S. cities. We

view the conditions surrounding COVID as one rich for experimental opportunity, possibly

transitioning to paradigms that prioritize forms of sustainable mobility. We therefore interrogated

how street planning actions could be leaned on as guideposts to transition to an alternative

transport future. Drawing from theories of sustainability transitions, we developed and tested a

novel rubric methodology. We assessed policy actions and provide valuable baseline data for future

investigations. By looking at the response measures, we observe that “innovator” cities excelled in

their efforts by combining radical characteristics with communicative and mobilizing qualities. The

vulnerabilities of the initiatives showed that cities, across all groups, demonstrate limited efforts in

strategic learning, evaluation and more deeply embedding these experiments into long-term

thinking (the strategic dimension). Cities that scored higher may have profited from planning

frameworks already in place, or under development prior to the emergency. However, the crisis

has given an impulse to cities across the board.

We see notable progress toward a broad recognition that the current character of streets

considerably impedes human-scaled transport. Many of these efforts called into question the

purpose(s) of city streets in terms of health, economic activity and recovery, mental, and physical

health. Some response measures drew attention to the scale that is needed—geographically, in

terms of creating new street networks—and the equitable distribution of where change would

most benefit those without access to cars, transit, pubic and green space. Furthermore, the

character of some streets altered in ways that was unimaginable to many people. On varying scales

and with different approaches to implementation, it is clear that municipal actions can accelerate

the adaptation of urban street space, and, in this case, a health crisis can serve as a stimulus to a

more radical and challenge-driven renewal.


22

But attempts to transition “streets for traffic” to “streets for people” face considerable obstacles.

Planners, elected officials and researchers have a responsibility to accelerate aggressive reform by

focusing efforts on human-scaled transport networks in cities – and, quite possibly, to seize this

“window of opportunity.” One challenge is to explore how existing regimes can gracefully age and

be replaced with minimal social and environmental impact, all while maintaining or increasing the

reliability of the services they provide.

To the extent that these experiments will continue to evolve or become permanent, the conditions

we document provide baseline data for myriad future investigations. Should additional actions be

taken up and executed, baseline data allows for better monitoring of the changes and implications

of outcomes—all in efforts to document larger transitions. A sub-cohort or quartile from this

study could, for example, form the basis of an in-depth qualitative case analysis. What social,

political, regulatory, or organizational conditions facilitate or hamper the street experiments? What

is the role of previous experience with crises or experimentation? What was learned from the

experiments and what becomes of their successes or failures? What kind of experimentation, over

the long-term, generates regime change? We see some of the response measures as experiments

that, with further testing, could seed components for a revolution in how city streets are used and

designed.

Acknowledgements

We are grateful for the efforts of Trey Hahn and Oliver Blake in creating the initial inventory of cities’ response

measures and rubric application. Sincere thanks are also due to Peter Pelzer, Derk Loorbach, and Luca Bertolini for

their very valuable feedback on the first iteration of the rubric development; and again to Luca Bertolini and an

anonymous reviewer at the Center for Urban Studies for helpful comments.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have

appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Funding Acknowledgments

We have no funding acknowledgments to disclose.

Meredith Glaser is an American-born urban planning researcher based in the Netherlands since 2010. At the

University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands, her research focuses on policy innovation, knowledge transfer, and

capacity building for accelerated implementation of sustainable transport goals.

Kevin J. Krizek is Professor of Transport in the Programs of Environmental Design and Environmental Studies at

the University of Colorado Boulder (USA). His research focuses on transport and land use policies that promote

sustainable and affordable urban travel and enhance urban livability.


23

References Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational Learning: A theory of Action Perspective. Addison-

Wesley. Ashmore, D. P., Pojani, D., Thoreau, R., Christie, N., & Tyler, N. A. (2018). The symbolism of

‘eco cars’ across national cultures: Potential implications for policy formulation and transfer. Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 63(June), 560–575.

Banister, D. (2005). Overcoming barriers to the implementation of sustainable transport. In R. Rietveld, P. & Stough (Ed.), Barriers to Sustainable Transport: Institutions, Regulation and Sustainability (pp. 54–68). Routlege.

Banister, David. (2008). The sustainable mobility paradigm. Transport Policy, 15(2), 73–80. Berke, P., Kartez, J., & Wenger, D. (1993). Recovery after Disaster: Achieving Sustainable

Development, Mitigation and Equity. Disasters, 17(2), 93–109. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.1993.tb01137.x

Bertolini, L. (2020). From “streets for traffic” to “streets for people”: can street experiments transform urban mobility? Transport Reviews, 0(0), 1–2 0. https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1761907

Bertolini, L., le Clercq, F., & Straatemeier, T. (2008). Urban transportation planning in transition. Transport Policy, 15, 69–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.11.002

Bista, S., Hollander, J. B., & Situ, M. (2020). A content analysis of transportation planning documents in Toronto and Montreal. Case Studies on Transport Policy, November 2019, 0–1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2020.06.007

Blake, O., Glaser, M., Bertolini, L., & te Brömmelstroet, M. (in press). How policies become best practices: A case study of best practice making in an EU knowledge sharing project. European Planning Studies.

Bulkeley, H., & Betsill, M. (2005). Rethinking Sustainable Cities: Multilevel Governance and the “Urban” Politics of Climate Change. Environmental Politics, 14(1), 42–63.

City of Oakland. (2019). City of Oakland Bicycle Plan. https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/bicycle-plan

City of Pittsburgh (2020). Pittsburgh Bike (+) Master Plan. https://pittsburghpa.gov/domi/bikeplan

City of Seattle. (2018). Implementation Plan: Bicycle Master Plan 2019-2024. https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/BicycleMasterPlan/190613_BMP_Imp_Plan_FINAL.pdf

Capolongo, S., Rebecchi, A., Buffoli, M., Appolloni, L., Signorelli, C., Fara, G. M., & D’Alessandro, D. (2020). COVID-19 and cities: From urban health strategies to the pandemic challenge. a decalogue of public health opportunities. Acta Biomedica, 91(2), 13–22. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i2.9515

Castán Broto, V., & Bulkeley, H. (2013). A survey of urban climate change experiments in 100 cities. Global Environmental Change, 23(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005

Dill, J., Smith, O., & Howe, D. (2017). Promotion of active transportation among state departments of transportation in the U.S. Journal of Transport and Health, 5, 163–171.

Forsyth, A., & Krizek, K. (2011). Urban Design: Is there a Distinctive View from the Bicycle? Journal of Urban Design, 16(4), 531–549. https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2011.586239

Gerring, J. (2001). Social Science Methodology: A Critical Framework. Cambridge University Press. Glaser, M., te Brömmelstroet, M., & Bertolini, L. (2019). Learning to build strategic capacity for

transportation policy change: An interdisciplinary exploration. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives, 1.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-7717.1993.tb01137.x

https://doi.org/10.1080/01441647.2020.1761907

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2020.06.007

https://www.oaklandca.gov/resources/bicycle-plan

https://pittsburghpa.gov/domi/bikeplan

https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/BicycleMasterPlan/190613_BMP_Imp_Plan_FINAL.pdf

https://www.seattle.gov/Documents/Departments/SDOT/About/DocumentLibrary/BicycleMasterPlan/190613_BMP_Imp_Plan_FINAL.pdf

https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i2.9515

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2012.07.005

https://doi.org/10.1080/13574809.2011.586239


24

Glaser, M., Krizek, K., & King, D. (in press). VIEWPOINT: Accelerating reform to govern streets in support of human-scaled accessibility. Transportation Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives.

Glaser, M., Blake, O., Bertolini, L., & te Brömmelstroet, M. (2020). Learning from abroad: An interdisciplinary exploration of knowledge transfer in the transport domain. Research in Transportation Business & Management. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100531

Grin, J., Rotmans, J., Schot, J., Geels, F., & Loorbach, D. (2010). Transitions to Sustainable Development – Part 1. New Directions in the Study of Long-Term Transformative Change. Routledge.

Healey, P. (1998). Building institutional capacity through collaborative approaches to urban planning. Environment and Planning A, 30(9), 1531–1546. https://doi.org/10.1068/a301531

Holden, E., Gilpin, G., & Banister, D. (2019). Sustainable mobility at thirty. Sustainability (Switzerland), 11(7), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071965

Innes, J. E. (1996). Planning through consensus building: A new view of the comprehensive planning ideal. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62(4), 460–472.

Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2007). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 14(1), 78–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500709469709

Kemp, R., Loorbach, D., & Rotmans, J. (2017). Transition management as a model for managing processes of co-evolution towards sustainable development. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World EcologyOnline) Journal, 1350–4509. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500709469709

Kindgon, J. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public polocoes. HarperCollins College Publishers. Kuhlberg, J. A., Hipp, J. A., Eyler, A., & Chang, G. (2014). Open streets initiatives in the United

States: Closed to traffic, open to physical activity. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 11(8), 1468–1474.

Liu, G., Krishnamurthy, S., & Van Wesemael, P. (2018). Conceptualizing cycling experience in urban design research: a systematic literature review. https://doi.org/10.1080/23800127.2018.1494347

Loorbach, D. (2010). Transition Management for Sustainable Development: A Prescriptive, Complexity-Based Governance Framework. Governance, 23(1), 161–183.

Lovelace, R., Morgan, M., & Talbot, J. (2020). Methods to prioritise pop-up active transport infrastructure. Transport Findings, July, 1–8.

Marsden, G., & Reardon, L. (2017). Questions of governance: Rethinking the study of transportation policy. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 101, 238–251.

May, P. J. (1992). Policy Learning and Failure. Source Journal of Public Policy Pol, 12(4), 331–354. Mercier, J., Carrier, M., Duarte, F., & Tremblay-Racicot, F. (2016). Policy tools for sustainable

transport in three cities of the Americas: Seattle, Montreal and Curitiba. Transport Policy, 50, 95–105.

Musselwhite, C., Avineri, E., & Susilo, Y. (2020). Editorial JTH 16 –The Coronavirus Disease COVID-19 and implications for transport and health. Journal of Transport and Health, 16(January). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.100853

Nakagawa, Y., & Shaw, R. (2004). Social Capital: A Missing Link to Disaster Recovery. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 22(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004

Nevens, F., Frantzeskaki, N., Gorissen, L., & Loorbach, D. (2013). Urban Transition Labs: Co-creating transformative action for sustainable cities. Journal of Cleaner Production, 50, 111–122.

https://doi.org/https:/doi.org/10.1016/j.rtbm.2020.100531

https://doi.org/10.1068/a301531

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500709469709

https://doi.org/10.1080/13504500709469709

https://doi.org/10.1080/23800127.2018.1494347

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jth.2020.100853

https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004


25

Norton, R. K. (2008). Using content analysis to evaluate local master plans and zoning codes. Land Use Policy, 25(3), 432–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.10.006

Olsson, J., & Hysing, E. (2012). Theorizing Inside Activism: Understanding Policymaking and Policy Change from Below. Planning Theory and Practice, 13(2), 257–273.

Pojani, D. (2020). Theoretical Approaches to Studying Policy Transfer. In Planning for Sustainable Urban Transport in Southeast Asia (pp. 9–16). Springer.

Pucher, J., & Buehler, R. (2016). Safer cycling through improved infrastructure. American Journal of Public Health, 106(12), 2089–2091. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303507

Rogers, E. M. (1962). Diffusion of Innovation. Free Press. Rogers, E. M. (2010). Diffusion of Innovations. Simon and Schuster. Roorda, C., Wittmayer, J., Henneman, P., van Steenbergen, F., Frantzeskaki, N., & Loorbach, D.

(2014). Transition Management in the Urban Context: Guidance Manual. Rose, R. (1993). Lesson Drawing in Public Policy: A Guide to Learning Across Time and Space. Chatham

House. Sarmiento, O. L., Díaz del Castillo, A., Triana, C. A., Acevedo, M. J., Gonzalez, S. A., & Pratt,

M. (2017). Reclaiming the streets for people: Insights from Ciclovías Recreativas in Latin America. Preventive Medicine, 103, S34–S40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.07.028

Seeger, M. W., Ulmer, R. R., Novak, J. M., & Sellnow, T. (2005). Post-crisis discourse and organizational change, failure and renewal. Journal of Organizational Change Management, 18(1), 78–95. https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810510579869

Sengers, F., Wieczorek, A. J., & Raven, R. (2019). Experimenting for sustainability transitions: A systematic literature review. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 145, 153–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.031

Smith, A., & Raven, R. (2012). What is protective space? Reconsidering niches in transitions to sustainability. Research Policy, 41(6), 1025–1036. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012

Smith, G., & Wenger, D. (2019). Sustainable Disaster Recovery: Operationalizing An Existing Agenda. In H. Rodriguez, E. Quarantelli, & R. Dynes (Eds.), Handbook of Disaster Research (pp. 234–257). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190274481.013.35

Stead, D. (2008). Institutional aspects of integrating transport, environment and health policies. Transport Policy, 15(3), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2007.12.001

Stead, D. (2016). Key research themes on governance and sustainable urban mobility. International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 10(1), 40–48. https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2013.821008

von Schönfeld, K. C., & Bertolini, L. (2017). Urban streets: Epitomes of planning challenges and opportunities at the interface of public space and mobility. Cities, 68(March), 48–55.

Willson, R. (2001). Assessing communicative rationality as a transportation planning paradigm. Transportation, 28, 1–31.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods. Sage PublicationsSage CA: Thousand Oaks, CA.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2007.10.006

https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2016.303507

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.07.028

https://doi.org/10.1108/09534810510579869

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.08.031

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2011.12.012

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780190274481.013.35

https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2013.821008


26

Appendix A: Inventory of Emergency Response Measures from 30 US cities

City Information Available public documentation about emergency response street changes

City/Region, State

Transportation agency What material is available? WEB=webpage(s); PLAN=planning document; PR=press release; REP= official report; APP= application form; FAQ = FAQ; PRES = Presentation; BLOG =blog post MAP = map

Name of policy / plan / program

Date launched Weblink to on-line information

Austin, TX Austin Transportation WEB PR REP MAP

Healthy Streets April 16, 2020 http://austintexas.gov/news/austin-transportation-opens-street-space-near-butler-trail-people-bicycling-and-walking-maintain-safe-physical-distance

Baltimore, MD Baltimore City Department of Transportation WEB APP

Slow Streets May 18, 2020 https://transportation.baltimorecity.gov/slow-streets-pilot-program

Boston, MA Boston Transportation Department WEB MAP

Heathy streets May 28, 2020 https://www.boston.gov/news/new-healthy-streets-program-part-bostons-covid-19-reopening-process; https://www.boston.gov/departments/transportation/healthy-streets

Charlotte, NC Charlotte Department of Transportation WEB MAP

Charlotte shared streets

May 9, 2020 https://charlottenc.gov/Transportation/Programs/Pages/CharlotteSharedStreets.aspx

Chicago, IL Chicago Department of Transportation WEB PR FAQ MAP

Our streets May 29, 20

https://www.chicago.gov/city/en/depts/cdot/supp_info/covid-mobility.html

Dallas, TX Dallas Department of Public Works WEB RERP

Slow Street May 7, 20 https://dallascityhall.com/departments/public-works/Pages/Dallas-Slow-Streets.aspx; https://9a270e0f-c7cd-4b82-b5e3-0e94a2987dcd.filesusr.com/ugd/256d25_75be46b711624cb29702c25743bd4c53.pdf

Denver, CO Department of Transport and Infrastructure WEB MAP

Vision Zero April 7, 2020 https://www.denvergov.org/content/denvergov/en/vision-zero/blog/articles/vision-zero-efforts-prevail-covid19.html

Houston, TX Planning and Development Department; Transportation Planning Division

WEB PR MAP

Slow Streets June 17, 2020 https://www.houstontx.gov/slowstreets/

Kansas City, MO Public Works Department WEB PR REP FAQ PRES MAP

Open streets May 22, 2020 https://www.kcmo.gov/Home/Components/FacilityDirectory/FacilityDirectory/190/360

Long Beach, CA Public Works Department WEB PR FAQ MAP

Open Streets June 9, 2020 http://longbeach.gov/goactivelb/programs/temporary-open-streets/; http://longbeach.gov/goactivelb/programs/temporary-open-streets/neighborhood-open-streets/;

Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles Department of Transportation WEB PR FAQ

Slow Street April 19, 2020 http://ladot.lacity.org/coronavirus/apply-slow-street-your-neighborhood


27

Milwaukee, WI Department of Public Works REP APP FAQ MAP

Active streets for businesses

June 16, 2020 https://activestreets.mailchimpsites.com

Minneapolis, MN Minneapolis Department of Transport; Department of Public Works

WEB MAP

Stay Healthy streets

April 29, 2020 http://www2.minneapolismn.gov/publicworks/trans/WCMSP-224120

Nashville, TN Metro Nashville Public Works PR FAQ PRES MAP

Slow streets June 8, 2020 https://www.nashville.gov/News-Media/News-Article/ID/9751/Nashville-Announces-Slow-Streets-Effort-to-Promote-Social-Distancing-While-Walking-Running-and…

New Orleans, LA Office of Transportation; Department of Public Works

WEB PR REP MAP

Slow streets May 5, 2020 https://www.nola.gov/transportation/slow-streets/?utm_campaign=City_of_New_Orleans&utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=

New York, NY New York City Department of Transportation WEB PR REP FAQ MAP

Open Streets April 27, 2020 https://www1.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/pedestrians/openstreets.shtml

Oakland, CA Department of Transportation WEB PR FAQ MAP

Slow Streets April 27, 2020 https://www.oaklandca.gov/projects/oakland-slow-streets

Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia Office of Transportation and Infrastructure

PR PRES

(No formal title for program)

March 20, 2020 https://www.phila.gov/2020-03-20-city-announces-closure-of-martin-luther-king-drive/

Pittsburgh, PA Department of Public Works WEB PLAN PR PRES

(No formal title for program)

June 10, 2020 https://pittsburghpa.gov/domi/covid-19#:~:text=Pittsburgh%20Neighborhood%20Slow%20Streets,the%20spread%20of%20COVID%2D19.

Portland, OR Portland Bureau of Transportation WEB PLAN FAQ MAP

Safe Streets May 28, 2020 https://www.portland.gov/transportation/safestreetspdx/news/2020/5/28/portland-bureau-transportation-launches-safe

Providence, RI

Department of Public Works WEB PR MAP

Slow streets May 2, 2020 https://www.providenceri.gov/city-providence-announces-slow-streets-pilot-program/

Raleigh, NC Transportation Department WEB MAP

Shared streets June 2, 2020 https://raleighnc.gov/shared-streets

Salt Lake City, UT

Transportation WEB PR REP FAQ MAP

Stay safe, stay active streets

April 13, 20 https://www.slc.gov/transportation/2020/04/13/stay-safe-stay-active-streets-response-to-covid-19/

San Antonio, TX City of San Antonio Public Works Department

PLAN MAP

Share the streets April 24, 2020 https://311.sanantonio.gov/kb/docs/articles/transportation/share-the-streets-program

San Diego, CA Transportation and Storm Water WEB MAP

Slow Streets May 26, 2020 https://www.sandiego.gov/tsw/programs/slow-streets-program


28

San Francisco, CA San Francisco Municipal Transport Authority WEB PR MAP

Slow streets May 16, 2020 https://www.sfmta.com/blog/next-phase-slow-streets; https://www.sfmta.com/projects/slow-streets-program#:~:text=The%20SFMTA's%20Slow%20Streets%20program,more%20as%20a%20shared%20space.&text=Our%20crews%20have%20added%20signage,traffic%20and%20prioritize%20walking%2Fbiking.

Seattle, WA Seattle Department of Transportation WEB PR BLOG MAP

Stay Healthy streets

April 16, 2020 https://sdotblog.seattle.gov/2020/04/16/announcing-stay-healthy-streets/; https://www.seattle.gov/transportation/projects-and-programs/programs/stay-healthy-streets

St. Louis, MO Department of Transportation PR (No formal title for program)

March 30, 2020 https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/departments/mayor/news/city-of-st-louis-restricts-vehicular-traffic-inside-several-parks.cfm

Tucson, AZ Tucson Department of Transportation WEB MAP

Slow Streets May 5, 2020 https://www.tucsonaz.gov/TucsonSlowStreets

Washington, D.C. District Department of Transportation WEB PR REP MAP

Slow Streets June 8, 2020 https://ddot.dc.gov/node/1481086


29

11 Some of the items represented concepts that are not straightforward and therefore require an additional level of decision rule for coding. For example, to answer the question, ‘‘Is there reference to city streets as a valuable public space?’’ the decision rule required that document explicitly call attention to streets as a community asset, a finite resource, or space for everyone. 12 Number of cities marked with 1 or 2 by at least one coder (n=30)

Appendix B: Rubric Items Item No.

Item

Type of entry

Additional coding instructions11

Frequency12 (%)

Percent agreement

1a

Is there reference to a future state for how streets are used that is paradigmatically different from that which currently exists?

0 no evidence; 1 mentioned; 2 strong evidence

e.g., references to achieving sustainability, not furthering motorized traffic, streets as public space

14 (46.6%) 83%

1b

Additional explanation for your choice above:

Text

2a

Is there reference to any of the following ideas? - Street as valuable public space


e.g., streets as community asset, finite, space for all. With general acknowledgement, code 1. With elaboration or across documents, code 2.

12 (40) 100i

2b

- Travel as a valued activity (as well as a derived demand)


e.g., travel as not only a utility but also for enjoyment, connection to community, family, health.

12 (40) 100i

2c

- People as the focus (rather than traffic)


e.g., keywords highlight residents, families, children, vulnerable residents, business owners.

17 (56.6) 100i

2d

- Slowing down movement


Strong evidence if there is enforced speed limit change, or one of the aims is directly to slow vehicles.

25 (83.3) 90

2e

- Shift from motorized to human powered (active) mobility


e.g., desire or goal to reduce motorized trips and replace with active modes

8 (26.6) 100i

2f

- Streets can serve a range of uses beyond being a channel for traffic


e.g., socializing, playing, exercising, economic activity, recreation, leisure, community engagement

20 (66.6) 100i


30

2g

Is there reference to implementing changes on a city-wide scale (as opposed to only in one or a few streets)?


With acknowledgement of possibility, code 1. With explicit goal to transition from a pilot to program (or underway), code 2.

17 (56.6) 100i

3


Text

4

Is there reference to how street changes might form a network?


With general reference to a network, code 1. With elaboration on links and nodes or a new system, code 2.

6 (20) 100

5

Do issues of equity appear to be considered for where street changes are occurring?


e.g., vulnerable, at-risk populations, communities of color, or those with low access to green/public space. With general reference, code 1. With elaboration, connection to other equity goals, code 2.

12 (40) 100i

6a

Is there evidence of a newly created, dedicated work group or task force charged with managing the planning and implementation?


2 (6.6) 97

6b

If yes, fill in name of task force and any available contact information:

Text

7a

Is there evidence of on-going engagement within or between City departments? - Police department


With general acknowledgement, code 1. With elaboration or consistency across documents, code 2.

3 (10) 93

7b

- Public health department


8 (26.6) 83

7c

- Mayor/commissioner/council


17 (56.6) 93

7d

- Parks and recreation department


11 (36.6) 97

7e

- Other:

Text

8

Is there evidence of on-going engagement with partners external to the city? (i.e., not residents, but specific community, city or regional partners)


17 (56.6) 90


31

9a

Does the plan acknowledge other benefits/synergies outside of preventing the spread of COVID?


e.g., mental health, physical health, recreation, economic benefits, accessibility.

28 (93.3) 100i

9b


Text

10a

Is there evidence of connecting the plan/program of street changes to existing (longer term / broader plans) policies or programs within the same city?


e.g., moving mobility towards carbon neutrality, ‘zero traffic victims’, livability and/or sustainability as driving goal rather than efficiency. With reference to existing plan(s), code 1. With elaborate description of existing plans, code 2.

14 (46.6) 93

10b

What plans/policies are mentioned (include year passed if possible):

Text

11

Is there evidence of an implementation schedule for the plan/policy? (e.g., phases or stages with timeline)


Mention of phase 1 and/or 2, code 1. If information about timelines and future phased plans, code 2.

12 (40) 100i

12

Copy and paste any objectives from text: Text

13

If objectives are present, is there evidence that objectives are SMART (specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, time-bound)?


If objectives meet some SMART indicators, code 1. If objectives are elaborated, code 2.

2 (6.6) 100

14a

Is there reference to any barriers to implementation, e.g., staff resources, time, limited budget, limited materials


7 (23) 90

14b

Other barriers mentioned:

Text

15a

If barriers are mentioned, is there reference to how the barriers are being dealt with?


6 (20) 0.9

15b

Copy and paste from text (indicate which file) how barriers are being dealt with, or additional explanation for your choice above:

Text

16a

Is there evidence of support for the plan or program of changes from the Mayor, Council/Aldermen, Commissioner, or other elected/appointed officials?


Short supportive statement from political representative, or mention of political support, code 1. If multiple political reps. quoted, or intensive involvement, code 2.

21 (70) 100i

16b

Indicate names and job titles (separated with semi-colon):

Text


32

17

Is there evidence of an effort to solicit involvement from residents?


e.g., requests to complete survey or attend meeting, volunteer, etc. With general acknowledgement, code 1. With encouragement or elaboration, code 2.

24 (80) 100i

18a

Is there evidence of an effort to solicit involvement from community-based groups, advocacy, or other?


14 (47) 87

18b

Elaboration of your choice above:

Text

19

Is there evidence of support from residents?


e.g., survey results or meeting results, volunteer participation, partnerships. With general acknowledgement, code 1. With encouragement or elaboration, code 2.

9 (30) 93

20a

Is there evidence of support from community-based groups, advocacy groups, advisory groups, or other?


9 (30) 100i

20b

Evidence of support from 'other' groups? And elaboration of your choice above:

Text

21

Is there evidence of an evaluation or monitoring plan? (i.e., not public outreach but evaluation of the program or street changes)


Assessment/evaluation/monitoring with no specifics, code 1. If indication of methods and more explanation, code 2.

17 (56.6)

100i

22 If evaluation/monitoring is present, is there reference to data collection method(s), e.g. intercept surveys (with users), photographic evidence of use, other surveys


2 (6.6) 100

23a

If evaluation/monitoring is present, is there reference to specific outcome measures or indicators to be assessed?


3 (10) 100

23b

If there is reference to specific outcome measures or indicators to be assessed, please add outcome measures here.

Text

24a If evaluation/monitoring is present, is there evidence that the evaluation is or will feed back into further policy development?


With general acknowledgement, code 1. With elaboration, code 2.

14 (46.6) 80

24b Additional explanation for your choice above:

Text


33

25a

Are there any references to aspiring to a future scale-up of the street changes (i.e., in other locations, or in more locations)?


If residents can apply for schemes, but no explanation of expansion, code mentioned.

18 (60) 100i

25b


Text

26a

Are there any references to aspirations of making the street changes permanent?



9 (30) 90

26b


Text

27a Is there reference to a pathway or next step for what is needed (e.g., approvals, assessment) to make the street changes permanent or scaled-up?



3 (10) 93

27b


Text

28a

Is there reference to any of the following? - Awareness campaign specific to plan/policy


With general acknowledgement, code 1. With elaboration or encouragement to use or attend, code 2.

8 (27) 80

28b

- Hashtag specific to plan/policy


6 (20) 97

28b

- Name of awareness campaign, hashtag, other information:

Text

29a

In what ways can residents provide input? - Survey


With general acknowledgement, code 1. With elaboration or encouragement to use or attend, code 2.

16 (53) 93

29b

- Volunteer


12 (40) 90

29c

- Attend meetings


4 (13) 93

29d

- Other ways residents can provide input?

Text


34

1100% agreement reached through group discussion with all coders, field re-coded

30a

Is there evidence that plan/policy is circulating on a local scale?


Search for the city and policy/program in reputable news media sources (not blogs, or activist websites).

30 (100) 93

30b

±3 links to news articles WITHIN THE CITY/REGION (LOCAL), separate with semicolon (;)

Text

31a

Is there evidence that plan/policy is circulating on a national scale?


Sources outside city or state

11 (37) 83

31b

±3 links to news articles OUTSIDE THE CITY/REGION (NATIONAL), separate with semi-colon (;) - could be state level if that's all available

Text

32a

Is there evidence that plan/policy is circulating on an international scale?


Sources outside the US 5 (17) 97

32b

±3 links to news articles OUTSIDE THE US (INTERNATIONAL), separate with semicolon (;)

Text

35

Appendix C: Rubric Development Dimension Theoretical guidance to examine

streets as transition experiments.

Items to assess through content analysis of public documentation

Examples from public documentation

Radical Is there reference to achieving a future state which is fundamentally different than current? a, b

Is there reference to streets as valuable public space? Is there reference to people as the focus (rather than traffic)? Is there reference to slowing down movement? Is there reference to shifting from motorized to active mobility?

Nashville: “Nashville has mobility challenges, including a lack of sidewalks and bikeways on many neighborhood streets. Slow Streets are one tool to help address these challenges…(and) allow us to envision how our streets could be used in ways that prioritize pedestrians and cyclists.” Pittsburgh: “Create a new norm. (Re)balancing vehicle space and people space; Reasserting slow speeds in neighborhood zones.” Seattle: “We must ensure Seattle is rebuilding better than before…Over the long term, these streets will become treasured assets in our neighborhoods.”

Are streets viewed as valuable public space serving a range of uses other than moving cars? a, b

Is there acknowledgement that streets can serve a range of uses beyond being a channel for traffic (e.g. socializing, playing, exercising)?

Providence: “By reimaging our largest public asset—our streets—we will immediately provide our residents with space right outside their doors to stay active.” New York: “By reimagining our physical streets to better serve New Yorkers on the frontlines of the pandemic, we are beginning the work of empathy and justice critical to our COVID recovery and to our climate change resistance.” (Mark Chambers, NY Director of Sustainability) Seattle: “Stay Healthy Streets are an important tool for families in our neighborhoods to get outside, get some exercise and enjoy the nice weather.”

Do the scale and distribution of street changes demonstrate a focus on local, inclusive accessibility? a

Is there reference to scaling-up street changes to a city-wide scale (as opposed to only in one or a few streets)? Is there reference to how street changes would form a network, thereby connecting—through links and nodes—a new system? Do issues of equity appear to be considered for where street changes are occurring? (i.e., vulnerable populations or those with low access to green space)

Los Angeles: “Neighborhood councils and community organizations in all areas of the City of Los Angeles are strongly encouraged to apply for Slow Streets L.A.” Portland: “PBOT will use an equity-focused approach to prioritize interventions in a way that will elevate the needs of our most impacted residents and workers while also considering areas of growing pedestrian, transit, and cycling activity.” Pittsburgh: “Preference will be given to applications for contiguous blocks that form a connected network of Neighborhood Slow Streets.” San Francisco: “We are very excited to be moving forward with the third phase Slow Streets, which will connect new and existing Slow Streets together into a network that allows most San Franciscans to be able to access essential services and employment without being reliant on either a car or Muni.”

Challenge driven

Is there evidence of efforts to engage relevant partners, stakeholders and (new) collaborations? b, c

Is there evidence of a newly created, dedicated work group or task force charged with managing the planning and implementation? Is there evidence of efforts to engage within or between City departments? Is there evidence of efforts to engagewith partners external to the city?

Chicago: “This new pilot adds…represents unprecedented collaboration between City departments, local chambers of commerce, industry groups and restaurateurs.” (Chicago Commissioner Rosa Escareno). San Francisco: “The Shared Spaces program is a bright spot emerging out of a dark time…I will continue to work with merchants and the community to make this experiment a success.” (San Francisco Supervisor Rafael Mandelman)

Are there references to other policies/actions that could achieve system-wide change when combined? b

Does the plan acknowledge benefits or synergies outside of preventing the spread of COVID?

Tucson: “Consider using existing bicycle boulevard routes identified in the City of Tucson Bicycle Boulevard Master Plan.”

36

Is there evidence of connecting street changes to existing (longer term / broader plans) policies or programs within the same city?

Portland: “The strategies will align with PBOT’s 2019-2022 Strategic Plan, led by a transportation justice framework.” Providence: “Both the reduction of traffic and increase of space will provide a safe environment for residents to maintain physical and mental health in their neighborhoods.”

Feasible Are operations management conditions set up to achieve implementation? b, c, d

Is there evidence of an implementation schedule?

Oakland: “Signs will be phased in over time. These ‘soft closures’ started on Saturday, 4/11/2020 and continue to expand.” Austin: “Healthy Streets phase two segments: The second batch of Healthy Streets are currently available for review”

Is there reference to and a drive to meet objectives? c, d

Is there reference or ambition to short-term objectives? Is there reference to barriers to implementation? Is there reference to how barriers are being dealt with?

Boston: “We aim to increase safety on Boston's streets by building protected bike lanes. Protected bike lanes will reduce crashes for everyone on our streets and help keep speeds in check.” San Francisco: “Resourcing and budgetary issues as we are called upon to move an increasingly larger number of people, despite health precautions requiring several times more space per person, while contending with reduced revenues caused by a depressed economy.” Providence: “A strict 10 MPH speed limit will be posted, with daily monitoring by community volunteers”

Is there evidence of on-going political support for the street experiment? a, c, d

Is there evidence of support for the street experiment from elected/appointed officials?

Nashville: “[The Slow Streets Program] is an important step as we work to create a wider network of safe neighborways for walking and biking throughout Nashville.” (Metro Council District 34 Member Angie Henderson) Los Angeles: “Slow Streets will help transform neighborhoods into accessible spaces where people can enjoy healthy recreation.” (Los Angeles Mayor Garcetti) Chicago: “Chicago’s 4,000 miles of streets represent 4,000 miles of opportunity to help both our residents and businesses…Reimagining the use of our streets ensures that we can bring businesses and neighborhoods back stronger and more connected than ever before.” (Commissioner Gia Biagi)

Is there evidence of on-going community support for the street experiment? a, b, d

Is there evidence of support to enact the street experiment from residents, community groups, advocates, etc.?

San Francisco: “Slow Streets have been wildly successful, and [resident] survey data indicates an 80 percent approval rating.” Austin: “As of June 5, 2020 more than 1,000 comments were received through the map tools and survey. Most survey respondents (77%) were supportive of the initiative and 20% were opposed.”

Strategic Is there evidence of monitoring, evaluation, and reflection on outcomes of the street experiment? a, b, c, d

Is there evidence of an evaluation plan? Is there evidence that the evaluation is or will feed back into long-term policy development?

Nashville: “Metro Public Works right-of-way inspectors will monitor the closures to ensure they are maintained for the duration.” Oakland: "Measure Impact and Modify Overtime. Our cities are adapting faster than ever before due to COVID-19. The program plans to evaluate the efficacy of our efforts overtime and make any relevant adjustments."

Is there evidence of data collection methods, especially aiming to broaden mainstream mobility data (i.e., well-being, equity, social capital, etc.)? a, b

Is there reference to data collection method(s)? Is there reference to specific outcome measures to be assessed?

Dallas: “This is your time to measure, document, and share. Work with volunteers to gather data. There are a few ways you can go about this.” Oakland: “[Streets included in the program are]…subject to observation/evaluations.”

37

Is there articulation of drivers and barriers to long-term change? a, b, d

Are there aspirations to future scale-up of the street changes (i.e., in other locations, or in more locations)? Are there aspirations of making the street changes permanent? Is there reference to a pathway or next step for what is needed (e.g., approvals, assessment) to make the street changes permanent or scaled-up?

San Antonio: “Starting with a few pilot projects can help build public and partner support while staff develop a more detailed plan.” Portland: “Evaluate the potential of adapting or making quick-build, interim, and temporary projects and programs permanent” Seattle: “Stay Healthy Streets can only be an asset with input and support from the people who live along and use them. Over the next few weeks, we’ll launch outreach to gather input on making them permanent."

Communicative & mobilizing

Does the agency promote public acceptability of the street experiment through information sharing, awareness, promotion? a

Is there evidence that the benefits of the street experiments are being widely publicized? Is there reference or encouragement to engage in an awareness campaign(s) or use a specific hashtag? Can residents provide input or participate in a survey, volunteering, or attending meetings?

Dallas: “Be sure to follow @betterblock to share photos and videos of your project. Also, include #DallasSlowStreets.” Tucson: “We Want to Hear from You! Please fill out this quick survey and share your thoughts about Slow Streets.”

At which scale does the story of the street experiment travel? b

Is there evidence that the street experiment is circulating at the local, national or international scales?

Boston: “In the next two weeks the Boston Transportation Department will make improvements that include street space allocated for expanded bus stops, new bike lanes, and outdoor restaurant seating.” (Boston Sun; May 28, 2020) Oakland: “Across the country in Oakland, Calif., the city has decided to close nearly 10 percent of its streets.” (New York Times, June 20, 2020) New York: “New York City is moving ahead with its plan to open up to 100 miles of streets to pedestrians and bicycle riders across the five boroughs…Mayor Bill de Blasio announced on Thursday that 12 more miles of roadways will be off limits to vehicular traffic.” (Daily Mail, UK; May 15, 2020)

Sources: (a) Banister (2008); (b) Bertolini (2020); (c) Loorbach (2010); (d) Marsden & Reardon (2017)

Date post:	12-Dec-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times