Objective ST.1 Decrease private motor vehicles trips and miles traveled

Indicators, Development Targets and Policies/Design Strategies

Indicators Development Targets Policies/Design Strategies
Primary
a. Proportion of households without a motor vehicle

Does the project incorporate strategies that would significantly reduce its contribution to new regional vehicle miles traveled by addressing:

1) Density, residential:

Benchmark: Is the project designed with a residential density at or above 25 dwelling units per residential acre (or at or above 40 dwelling units per residential acre for projects <1/2 mile from regional mass transit stops including rail, ferry, or bus service)? (note: 1 acre = 4840 Square Yards = 43560 Square Feet = 220 ft. x 198 ft.)

2) Parking, residential zoning:

Benchmark: Does the project provide structured residential parking at a ratio less than or equal to one space for every two households for projects <1/2 mile from regional mass transit stops including rail, ferry, or bus service OR a ratio less than or equal to three spaces for every four households for the rest of the city?

3) Parking, pricing:

Benchmark: Does the project address parking through at least 2 of the following pricing strategies?
  • On-street parking priced for a target utilization rate of 85%
  • Variable rate parking pricing (e.g. it costs more per hour the longer you park)
  • Coordinated off-street and on-street parking pricing (to increase utilization of off-street parking)
  • Unbundled parking (charging for parking costs separate from residential/commercial property/rental costs, making parking costs transparent and optional instead of a hidden cost)
  • Parking cash-out policies (allowing employees to choose between receiving subsidized parking or the equivalent amount of money that would be used for the parking space

4) Transportation demand management policies and programs:

Benchmark: Does the project provide at least 3 of the following transportation demand management strategies?
  • Carpool matching programs
  • Dedicated employee or resident transportation coordinator
  • Financial incentives for walkers and bicyclists
  • Free or reduced cost transit passes
  • Guaranteed ride home program
  • Preferential carpool/vanpool parking
  • Provision of bus schedules, bike maps, other transportation alternatives
  • Telecommuting
  • Another transportation demand management strategy (please note)
Regulatory Minimums: SF Planning Code Sections 155.1, 155.2, 155.4, and 155.5 require bicycle parking in city-owned and leased buildings; city-owned and privately-owned parking garages; commercial buildings; and residential uses. The number of spaces required by building size and type of use are detailed in the SF Planning Code. SF Planning Code Section 155.3 requires shower facilities and lockers in new commercial and industrial buildings and existing buildings undergoing major renovations (with existing costs at least $1,000,000); the required number of showers and lockers varies by building size and type of use. SF Planning Code Section 166 requires car share parking spaces in newly constructed residential buildings or buildings being converted to residential uses that provide parking when they include 50 or more residential units (50 - 200 units = 1 space; 201 or more units = 1 space + 1 space for every 200 dwelling units over 200).

  • Increase street connectivity. In new developments, favor a gridiron street layout. In older neighborhoods with curved, disconnected streets install pedestrian/bicycle pathways to increase connectivity.1

  • Re-designate truck routes away from areas with high asthma rates and sensitive land uses such as schools, residential areas, parks, childcare centers, and hospitals.2

  • Work with the Police Department to enforce fines for illegal truck idling.3

  • Require warehouse and distribution facilities to provide adequate on site truck parking.4

  • Require refrigerated warehouses to provide generators so refrigerated trucks do not have to idle.5

  • Provide an adequate amount of short-term, on-street curbside freight loading spaces in PDR areas to avoid double parking and idling.6

  • Establish transportation impact fees based on the number of vehicle trips generated by projects.7

  • Separate or "unbundle" the sale or rent of parking spaces from that of the housing/commercial space.8-10

  • Create a system whereby residents in mixed-use developments can rent their personal parking spaces to building patrons on an hourly basis when they are not using them.8-10
  • Prioritize development projects located near high capacity, frequent, and reliable public transit.11
  • Increase street connectivity. In new developments, favor a gridiron street layout. In older neighborhoods with curved, disconnected streets install pedestrian/bicycle pathways to increase connectivity.12,13
  • Eliminate residential car parking minimum requirements and require all parking to be located underground or on the ground floor if wrapped in active uses on all public frontages, especially in transit-rich, mixed-use areas. 14,15
  • Implement congestion pricing policies on road facilities, particularly in areas with high traffic volumes.16,17
  • Establish a residential transit pass program funded by monthly or annual homeowners' fees. The transit pass program should subsidize free or discounted passes for below market rate units.18,19
  • Work with local and/or regional transit agencies to provide subsidized transit passes to tenants in below market rate units and other transit-dependent tenants (e.g., persons with disabilities, seniors, and youth).18,19
  • Require or incentivize employers to subsidize employees who commute to work via mass transit, bicycle or foot.20,21
  • Ensure that all employees have access to tax incentives for mass transit (e.g., commuter check programs). 22
  • Provide no-cost shuttles between worksites, homes, and regional public transit.23,24
  • Make parking spaces available to any car-share entity in perpetuity with 90 days notice in development with 50 or more parking spaces. Car-share spaces should be provided at the rate of one space for developments with 50 or more spaces, plus an additional space for every 100 spaces over 50. Car-share spaces would not count against any maximum parking requirement. 323.324
  • Support efforts to proactively and publicly promote the use of car-share programs by providing public information on vehicle locations and availability.25
  • Establish minimum parking prices that exceed the unsubsidized cost of transit fares.26
  • Provide secure, covered bicycle parking and changing facilities at workplaces.27
  • Use excess parking spaces for alternative uses such as additional bicycle parking, CSA drop-off sites, additional car-share spaces, and/or space to store for building-shared shopping carts in developments where/when not all car parking spaces are utilized. 28,29
  • Implement employee parking parameters to reduce driving, such as: preferred carpool parking; parking priced above the cost of transit fares and at par with the market price for proximate all-day parking facilities; not offering long-term parking pass discounts; not allowing reserved individual employee parking spaces.29-32
  • Provide a dedicated central space to display information about public transit and other alternative transportation options (e.g., bike lanes, car-sharing, car pooling) in the neighborhood, residential or employee facilities. 33,34
  • Reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled through transportation demand management strategies such as parking cash-out policies, commuter checks, emergency ride home programs, provision of information (e.g., transit schedules, bike maps), incentives (e.g., for walking and biking to work), carpool matching programs, preferential carpool/vanpool parking, secure (indoor) bike parking, employee showers/changing facilities, and telecommuting options.35
  • Mitigate economic barriers and inequities when selecting appropriate Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures by subsidizing transit passes based on household income (e.g., <200% poverty level) or housing costs (e.g., for below-market rate units), or providing discounts on car-share memberships or discounts on new bicycles and helmets.36
  • Encourage banks and mortgage companies to offer location efficient mortgages to homebuyers in walkable, transit rich areas. These mortgages take into account the money homebuyers will save by reducing or eliminating private automobile usage, which increases the amount of money they are able to borrow for a mortgage.37,38
b. Proportion of commute trips made by driving alone

Same as above.
c. Average vehicle miles traveled by San Francisco residents per day

Same as above.
d. Gross number of vehicle trips per San Francisco resident per day

Same as above.

 
e. Traffic volume by miles of street

Same as above.
f. Proportion of households living within 150 meters of designated truck routes

Benchmark #1: Where sensitive uses are proposed within 150 meters of a truck route, does the project analyze potential air quality impacts on sensitive uses AND either avoid locating the sensitive use, OR reduce truck traffic on the adjacent route, OR provide an HVAC system with filtration to reduce/mitigate infiltration of vehicle emissions?

AND

Benchmark #2:  Does commercial development greater than 50,000 sq. feet provide adequate on site truck parking?
g. Number of motor vehicle collisions

Does the project incorporate strategies that would result in a significant increase in trips made by walking and reduce or prevent pedestrian injury collisions in the area by:

1) Pedestrian environment:

Benchmark: Does the project incorporate at least 6 interventions from the following list?
OR
Does the project achieve a one grade level improvement in the Pedestrian Environmental Quality Index score (in the acceptable range)?
  • Advance limit/yield lines at marked crosswalks
  • Corner bulb-outs
  • Crosswalks that are signalized and marked (preferably with a pedestrian countdown signal - especially when more than 2 lanes of traffic)
  • Driveway cuts are prohibited or kept to a minimum of 4 or fewer per street segment
  • Median refuge islands
  • Pedestrian-oriented building access
  • Pedestrian scale design on building frontages
  • Pedestrian scale lighting on private buildings and/or on public streets
  • Pedestrian specific building entrances
  • Public art in streetscape
  • Public seating in streetscape
  • Restaurants, retail uses and historical sites located in/near project area, approximately one destination per block
  • Safe routes to schools or other key pedestrian destinations, including senior facilities, health care, grocery stores, and public transit stops/stations
  • Sidewalk curb cuts for pedestrians at intersections and other pedestrian street crossings
  • Sidewalks free of impediments (so that people may walk and push baby strollers, etc. safely)
  • Sidewalks with a continuous curb with appropriately placed curb cuts for people with disabilities (an exception being pedestrian-oriented, Woonerf streets)
  • Street trees, planters, and gardens included in streetscape
  • Street cleaning addressed in project/plans - including trash can locations, graffiti removal where applicable
  • Signage for pedestrians, specific to the neighborhood/street - potentially including area maps

2) Pedestrian safety analysis:

Benchmark: Does the project: a) identify areas (intersections, streets, small areas) where pedestrian injury collisions have occurred in or near the project area OR b) identify where potential future conflicts exist in or near the project area (e.g., when new residents or employees are being introduced to an area with a previously low population and/or high traffic volumes on streets) AND target pedestrian environment improvements to those areas?

3) Traffic calming:

Benchmark: Does the project include at least 4 of the following traffic calming interventions to slow traffic speeds and reduce risk of collisions (pedestrian as well as bicycle and vehicle-vehicle) and related injuries and deaths in the area?
  • Bollards (short vertical posts)
  • Channelization islands (raised island that forces traffic in a particular direction, such as right-turn-only)
  • Chicanes (curb bulges or planters on alternating sides, forcing motorists to slow down)
  • Chokers (raised islands in a parking zone that narrow a roadway).
  • Curb extensions, planters, or centerline traffic islands that narrow traffic lanes
  • Gateway treatments
  • Horizontal shifts (a lane centerline that curves or shifts)
  • Median islands (raised island in the road center)
  • Parking restrictions for on-street parking such as residential permit parking
  • Perceptual design features (e.g. patterns painted into road surfaces that encourage drivers to reduce their speeds)
  • Reductions in the number and width of traffic lanes (particularly on arterials)
  • Roundabouts (medium to large circles at intersections)
  • Rumble or warning strips
  • Semi-diverters, partial closures (restricts entry/exit to/from neighborhood and limits traffic flow at intersections)
  • Signal timing to reduce traffic speeds
  • Speed humps
  • Speed limit enforcement that is automated - such as photo radar speed enforcement or radar trailers which show drivers their current speed and the posted speed limit
  • Speed limit signs
  • Speed tables, raised crosswalks
  • Street closures (closing off streets to through vehicle traffic at intersections or midblock)
  • Street trees (create a sense of enclosure and improve the pedestrian environment)
  • Tighter corner radii (a tighter radius forces drivers to reduce speed)
  • Traffic circles
  • Truck restrictions (particularly in residential areas or near pedestrian-oriented uses)
  • Turn restrictions (to keep traffic on main traffic streets)
  • Woonerfs (streets with mixed vehicle and pedestrian traffic, where motorists are required to drive at very low speeds)
  • Another traffic calming strategy (please note)

Health-based Rationale

  • Vehicle miles traveled are directly proportional to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.39
  • Areas with high levels of vehicle miles traveled per capita also tend to have higher accident and injury rates.40-41 Compact areas with lower levels of vehicle miles traveled per capita tend to have lower accident and injury rates.42

  • A study of 448 counties in the US found that a summary index of urban sprawl predicted the odds of hypertension for county residents. The index used 22 indicators of residential density, land use mix, degree of centering, and street connectivity. Individuals were more likely to have hypertension if they lived in a county with a higher sprawl index regardless of their age, sex, race, educational attainment, smoking status and diet.43

  • Living in an area with high residential density, interconnected streets, and many desirable destinations within walking distance is associated with higher rates of walking and cycling among adult residents.44

  • An analysis of data from the Atlanta SMARTRAQ travel survey found that increasing street interconnectedness and residential density were predictive of lower rates of obesity and overweight.45

  • Children living next to busy roadways have more respiratory disease symptoms, asthma hospitalizations and doctor visits, and poorer lung function measures than children who live further away from high traffic areas.46  Air pollution associated with roadway proximity contributes to cancer, respiratory disease, and impaired lung development.47

  • Air pollution from automobile emissions costs the nation’s health 50-70 million days with restricted levels of activity, 20,000 to 46,000 cases of chronic respiratory illness, and 40,000 premature deaths.Health effects associated with short-term exposure to fine particulate matter (air pollutants) include: increased hospital admission and ER visits for cardiovascular and respiratory diseases, non-fatal heart attacks, premature death in people with heart and lung disease, and lung function changes especially in children and people with lung diseases such as asthma.48

  • In California, transportation contributes approximately 50% of greenhouse gas emissions49 - and is a large and growing share of greenhouse gas emissions nationally.  Climate change in turn threatens to have global and catastrophic effects on health through: increased frequency, intensity and length of heat waves, floods, droughts, windstorms and wildfire, leading to increased mortality, illness and mental health impacts; increased exposures to ground-level ozone and aeroallergens, exacerbating cardiovascular and pulmonary illness; and shifts towards warmer temperatures, leading to increased risk of food- and waterborne infectious diseases.50

  • Nationally, for people aged 4 to 34, traffic injuries are the single greatest cause of disability and death.Approximately 40,000 people die in motor vehicle collisions each year.51

  • Driving takes time away from other health positive activities, such as exercise, community involvement or time with family.For example, a study in Atlanta, Georgia found that each additional hour spent in a car per day was associated with a 6% increase in the likelihood of obesity. Conversely, each additional kilometer walked per day was associated with a 4.8% reduction in the likelihood of obesity.52

  • Moderate levels of traffic noise negatively impacts on stress, and is associated with higher risk for hypertension, blood pressure, and heart disease.53  Children exposed to high levels of traffic noise are at increased risk of learning delays.54 Traffic noise also contributes to sleep disturbance, annoyance, leading to decreased concentration, increased aggressive behavior, and decrease helping behavior.54

  • More compact, mixed-use development can produce reductions in energy consumption and CO2 emissions both directly and indirectly.55

Established Standards

  1. HP 2010 Objective 22.14: Increase the proportion of trips made by walking56
  2. HP 2010 Objective 22.15: Increase the proportion of trips made by bicycling57
  3. SF Planning Code Sections 155.1, 155.2, 155.4, and 155.5 require bicycle parking in city-owned and leased buildings; city-owned and privately-owned parking garages; commercial buildings; and residential uses. The number of spaces required by building size and type of use are detailed in the SF Planning Code. SF Planning Code Section 155.3 requires shower facilities and lockers in new commercial and industrial buildings and existing buildings undergoing major renovations (with existing costs at least $1,000,000); the required number of showers and lockers varies by building size and type of use. SF Planning Code Section 166 requires car share parking spaces in newly constructed residential buildings or buildings being converted to residential uses that provide parking when they include 50 or more residential units (50 - 200 units = 1 space; 201 or more units = 1 space + 1 space for every 200 dwelling units over 200). Available at: http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?sid=5&browseAllCodes=San%20Francisco

  4. The City and County of San Francisco has a Transit-First Policy, first adopted in 1973, to support public transit, walking and biking as an economically and environmentally sound alternative to transportation by individual automobiles.  The policy specifically cites the benefits for public health and safety of reducing traffic and improving the quality of public transit and the environment for pedestrians and cyclists.                              

    SEC. 8A.115.  TRANSIT-FIRST POLICY.

    (a)   The following principles shall constitute the City and County's transit-first policy and shall be incorporated into the General Plan of the City and County. All officers, boards, commissions, and departments shall implement these principles in conducting the City and County's affairs:

    1.   To ensure quality of life and economic health in San Francisco, the primary objective of the transportation system must be the safe and efficient movement of people and goods.

    2.   Public transit, including taxis and vanpools, is an economically and environmentally sound alternative to transportation by individual automobiles. Within San Francisco, travel by public transit, by bicycle and on foot must be an attractive alternative to travel by private automobile.

    3.   Decisions regarding the use of limited public street and sidewalk space shall encourage the use of public rights of way by pedestrians, bicyclists, and public transit, and shall strive to reduce traffic and improve public health and safety.

    4.   Transit priority improvements, such as designated transit lanes and streets and improved signalization, shall be made to expedite the movement of public transit vehicles (including taxis and vanpools) and to improve pedestrian safety.

    5.   Pedestrian areas shall be enhanced wherever possible to improve the safety and comfort of pedestrians and to encourage travel by foot.

    6.   Bicycling shall be promoted by encouraging safe streets for riding, convenient access to transit, bicycle lanes, and secure bicycle parking.

    7.   Parking policies for areas well served by public transit shall be designed to encourage travel by public transit and alternative transportation.

    8.   New transportation investment should be allocated to meet the demand for public transit generated by new public and private commercial and residential developments.

    9.   The ability of the City and County to reduce traffic congestion depends on the adequacy of regional public transportation. The City and County shall promote the use of regional mass transit and the continued development of an integrated, reliable, regional public transportation system.

    10.   The City and County shall encourage innovative solutions to meet public transportation needs wherever possible and where the provision of such service will not adversely affect the service provided by the Municipal Railway.

    (b)   The City may not require or permit off-street parking spaces for any privately-owned structure or use in excess of the number that City law would have allowed for the structure or use on July 1, 2007 unless the additional spaces are approved by a four-fifths vote of the Board of Supervisors. The Board of Supervisors may reduce the maximum parking required or permitted by this section.

    (Amended by Proposition A, Approved 11/6/2007)  Note:Formerly § 16.102.58

1. Krizek K. Residential relocation and changes in urban travel - Does neighborhood-scale urban form matter? Journal of the American Planning Association. 2003;69(3):265-281.
2. Urban Habitat: Ditching Diesel. http://www.urbanhabitat.org/node/163
3. The Pacific Institute: West Oakland Environmental Indicators Project. Clearing the Air: Reducing Diesel Pollution in West Oakland. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5935/is_200509/ai_n23937670; US EPA. Compilation of State, County, and Local Anti-Idling Regulations. http://epa.gov/smartway/documents/420b06004.pdf
4. Whole Building Design Guide: Warehouses. http://www.wbdg.org/design/warehouse.php
5. Refrigerated Transporter. AuraGen and Oasis all-electric refrigeration solution is exempt from CARB's measure. http://refrigeratedtrans.com/refrigeration/equipment/auragen_oasis_allelectric_0708/
6. US Department of Energy. National Idling Reduction Network. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/resources/fcvt_national_idling.html
7. Municipal Research and Services Center of Washington: Transportation Impact Fees http://www.mrsc.org/Subjects/Planning/transimpactfees.aspx
8. San Francisco Planning Code: Article 1.5 Off-Street Parking and Loading. Section. 167. Parking Costs Separated From Housing Costs in New Residential Buildings http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_page.asp?id=36965
9. Boston Metropolitan Area Planning Council. Sustainable Transportation Toolkit: Unbundle Parking http://transtoolkit.mapc.org/Parking/Strategies/unbundle_parking.htm
10. Urban Land Institute. "Parking: The Expensive Amenity" http://commerce.uli.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=100067&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm
11. Center for Transit Oriented Development http://www.reconnectingamerica.org/public/tod
12. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Online TDM Encyclopedia: Roadway Connectivity http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm116.htm
13. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation: The Fused Grid http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/su/sucopl/fugr/index.cfm
14. Urban Action. "Residential Parking Regulation in San Francisco: The Unintended Consequences of Residential Parking Minimums" http://bss.sfsu.edu/urbanaction/ua2007/articlesPDF/parking.pdf
15. San Francisco Planning and Urban Research. "Parking and Livability in Downtown San Francisco: Parking policies to discourage congestion and improve the urban environment in the new, mixed-use downtown" http://www.spur.org/publications/library/report/parkingandlivabilityindowntownsf_010105
16. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. "London Congestion Pricing" http://www.vtpi.org/london.pdf
17. Norwegian Cordon Tolls http://www.progress-project.org/Progress/tron.html
18. Transportation and Land Use Coalition. "It Takes a Transit Village: How Better Planning Can Save the Bay Area Billions of Dollars and Ease the Housing Shortage" http://www.transcoalition.org/reports/it_takes_transit_village.pdf
19. Bay Area Metropolitan Transportation Commission. TransLink for Transit Oriented Development (TOD): Pilot Project http://apps.mtc.ca.gov/meeting_packet_documents/agenda_1087/11_Translink_for_TOD.pdf
20. SF Environment. Commuter Benefits http://www.commuterbenefits.org
21. San Francisco Chronicle "Emeryville firm pays employees to bike" http://www.sfchroniclemarketplace.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/07/30/BUQF121EKO.DTL
22. SF Environment. Commuter Benefits http://www.commuterbenefits.org
23. University of California, San Francisco Shuttle Bus Program http://www.campuslifeservices.ucsf.edu/transportation/shuttles/
24. New Jersey Department of Transportation: Commute Alternatives Employer-sponsored Shuttles http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/commuter/smartmoves/empshuttles.shtm
25. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. City CarShare Partners with BART and MTC http://www.mtc.ca.gov/news/press_releases/archive/rel212.htm
26. San Francisco Department of Public Health Comment on Hastings Parking Garage Project DEIR http://www.sfphes.org/publications/comments/HastingsParkingDEIR.pdf
27. San Francisco Bicycle Coalition: SF Bike Guide for Employers http://www.sfbike.org/?employers
28. Singapore Urban Redevelopment Authority: Circulars 2008 http://www.ura.gov.sg/circulars/text/dc08-02.htm
29. Louisville Planning Commission http://www.louisvilleco.gov/SERVICES/PlanningZoning/tabid/180/Default.aspx
30. Transportation Research Board. The High Cost of Free Parking http://www.trb.org/Conferences/RoadPricing/Presentations/Shoup.ppt
31. Maryland Governor's Office of Smart Growth "Driving Urban Environments: Smart Growth Parking Best Practices" http://www.smartgrowth.state.md.us/pdf/Final%20Parking%20Paper.pdf
32. Boston Metropolitan Area Planning Council "Sustainable Transportation Toolkit: Parking" http://transtoolkit.mapc.org/Parking/Strategies/parking_and_TDM.htm
33. North Bethesda Transportation Center: Customized Community Resource Packages http://www.nbtc.org/community.html
34. Clean Air Day Canada: Lobby Display http://www.cleanairday.com/html/Activities.php#lobby
35. Victoria Transport Policy Institute: Transportation Demand Management Encyclopedia http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm12.htm
36. Victoria Transport Policy Institute: Transportation Demand Management Encyclopedia "Equity Evaluation: Perspectives and Methods for Evaluating the Equity Impacts of Transportation Decisions" http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm13.htm
37. Location Efficient Mortgages http://www.locationefficiency.com/
38. Victoria Transport Policy Institute. Transport Demand Management: Location Efficient Development and Mortgages http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm22.htm
39. Ewing R, Frank L, Kreutzer R. Understanding the Relationship between Public Health and the Built Environment: A Report to the LEED-ND Core Committee. 2006.
40. Hadayeghi A, Shalaby AS, Persaud BN. Macrolevel accident prediction models for evaluating safety of urban transportation systems. Transportation Research Record. 2003 no. 1840:87-95.
41. Lovegrove GR, Sayed T. Macrolevel collision prediction models for evaluating neighborhood traffic safety. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering. 2006;33(5):609-621.
42. Ewing R, Schieber RA, Zegeer CV. Urban sprawl as a risk factor in motor vehicle occupant and pedestrian fatalities. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(9):1541-5.
43. Ewing R, Schmid T, Killingsworth R, Zlot A, Raudenbush S. Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. Am J Health Promot. 2003;18(1):47-57.
44. Saelens BE, Sallis JF, Frank LD. Environmental correlates of walking and cycling: findings from the transportation, urban design, and planning literatures. Ann Behav Med. 2003;25(2):80-91.
45. Bodea TD, Garrow LA, Meyer MD, Ross CL. Policy and Practice : Socio-demographic and built environment influences on the odds of being overweight or obese: The Atlanta experience. Transportation Research Part A. 2009;43(4):430-444.
46. Brunekreef B, Janssen NA, Hartog J. 1997. Air pollution from truck traffic and lung function in children living near motorways. Epidemiology 8:298-303; Kim JJ, Smorodinsky S, Lipsett M, Singer BC, Hodgson AT, Ostro B. 2004. Traffic-related air pollution and respiratory health: East Bay Children's Respiratory Health Study. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 170:520-526.; Lin S, Munsie JP, Hwang SA, Fitzgerald E, Cayo MR. 2002. Childhood asthma hospitalization and residential exposure to state route traffic. Environmental Research 88(2):73-81; McConnell R, Berhane K, Yao L, Jerrett M, Lurmann F, Gilliland F, Künzli N, Gauderman J, Avol E, Thomas D, Peters J. 2006. Traffic, susceptibility, and childhood asthma. Environmental Health Perspectives. 114(5):766-72.
47. California Air Resources Board. 2005. Air Quality and Land Use Handbook: A Community Health Perspective. California Air Resources Board. http://www.arb.ca.gov/ch/landuse.htm
48. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2001. Vehicle travel: Recent trends and environmental impacts. Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions Between Land Use, Transportation, and Environmental Quality. Chapter 4. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/built_chapter3.pdf
49. California Air Resources Board. 2009. 50 Things You Can Do. California Air Resources Quality Board. http://www.arb.ca.gov/html/brochure/50things.htm
50. Environmental Defense Fund, National Association of City and County Health Officers, George Mason University. 2007. Are We Ready? Preparing for the Public Health Challenges of Climate Change. http://www.edf.org/documents/7846_AreWeReady_April2008.pdf
51. Subramanian R. 2006. Motor Vehicle Traffic Crashes as a Leading Cause of Death in the United States, 2003. NHTSA Traffic Safety Facts Research Note. http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/RNotes/2006/810568.pdf
52. Frank L, Andersen, M, Schmid, T. 2004. Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventative Medicine. 27;87-96.
53. Miedema HME, Vos H. 1998. Exposure response for transportation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. 104:3432-3445; Seto, EYW, Holt A, Rivard T, Bhatia R. 2007. Spatial distribution of traffic induced noise exposures in a US city: an analytic tool for assessing the health impacts of urban planning decisions. International Journal of Health Geographics. 6:24. http://www.ij-healthgeographics.com/content/6/1/24
54. Evans GW. 2006. Child development and the physical environment. Annual Review of Psychology 57:423-451.
55. Transportation Research Board. 2009. Driving and the Built Environment: The Effects of Compact Development on Motorized Travel, Energy Use, and CO2 Emissions. Transportation Research Board Special Report 298. National Research Council.
56. Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/
57. Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/
58. San Francisco Municipal Code, Article VIIIA - The Municipal Transportation Agency, Section 8A.115. Transit-First Policy. http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=14130&sid=5