Overview of
February 2004
prepared by
Robert Warren, PhD
Lorene Athey, RLA
William Fasano
Institute for Public Administration
College of Human Services, Education & Public Policy
University of Delaware
www.ipa.udel.edu
Mobility Friendly Design Standards
an overview of the resource, “Mobility Friendly Design Standards: A Framework for Delaware,”
prepared for the February 26, 2004, Mobility Friendly Design Standards Summit at the
University of Delaware Goodstay Center in Wilmington, Delaware
Overview Summary
Modern Problems of Mobility
Identifying the challenge to personal mobility in 2004 is both apparent and incredibly complex in
nature. For millions of individuals who make up the majority—young to middle-aged, ablebodied, and sufficiently resourced—the challenge to personal mobility manifests in frustrating
traffic jams along major highway corridors. Mobility challenges are much more tangible to the
elderly, the disabled, and children, whose non-automobile modes of travel—bicycle, bus, train,
or foot—often come into conflict with automobile infrastructure and are usually given little
attention by policymakers who are forced to address the problems and needs of an auto-based
culture at the expense of those who do not drive. This dilemma provides a direct challenge to
policymakers at the state level, whose primary goal is to support and strive for social equity as
well as ensure the efficiency and workability of public infrastructure and services. In theory, the
public administration field and policymaking demand that all individuals be given equal
opportunities to live and work, but this concept is often difficult to incorporate into a widespread
and regional transportation infrastructure.
Driving the mobility issue are economic, cultural, and social trends that have increasingly
exacerbated the challenges posed by mobility. Most prominent among these trends are
suburbanization and the general increase in personal and household incomes. In addition,
residential decentralization over the last half-century has brought with it employment
decentralization and a decrease in population densities across all areas. Many past local public
management practices—and some current ones—have also contributed to transportation
problems through less-than-thoughtful zoning decisions and ordinances that have tended to push
differentiated land uses farther and farther apart. The transportation systems, public transit
services, and infrastructure that stem from these social and political trends tend to be inefficient,
unsatisfactory, unattractive, expensive, inequitable, and unsustainable over the long term.
Furthermore, the over-reliance on and focused investment in auto-related infrastructure have led,
according to many experts, to a general decrease in physical activity among individuals and the
degradation of healthy lifestyles. Clearly, a new approach to mobility is needed that includes the
support of multiple modes of transportation and focuses on the needs of the total population.
Defining Mobility
The concept of mobility spans a wide range of definitions and perceptions for the public and
policymakers. For some, mobility relates to the physical ability of individuals to move from
place to place. For others, mobility relates to the provision of sufficient infrastructure to allow
movement to and from destinations. In fact, mobility may carry a multitude of meanings for
policymakers, with applications ranging from the theoretical to the practical. These varying ideas
of what mobility is or should be ultimately translate into statewide policies, regulations, and
design standards that can be unfocused across agencies and, in many cases, counterproductive to
the central goal of mobility itself. In order to remain unified and collectively progressive in
Mobility Friendly Design Standards
Overview Summary
1
formulating policy regarding mobility, it seems important to establish a unified definition of the
concept toward which all policymakers can base their goals, objectives, and strategies. To this
end, the definition of mobility forwarded by Suen and Mitchell seems most appropriate:
Mobility means having transport services going where and when one
wants to travel; being informed about the services; knowing how to use them;
being able to use them; and having the means to pay for them.1
The goals and objectives inherent in this definition of mobility are certainly difficult; however,
the resultant policies and activities that use this inclusive concept as a focus may be much more
effective at serving the goals of public equity and infrastructure efficiency as compared with
those guided by more disparate views. The final destination of all policymaking regarding
mobility may be a widely applicable set of development and redevelopment guidelines that
directly provide for the accommodation of multiple modes of efficient transportation methods
and services. Getting there, though, requires a detailed evaluation of mobility friendly design
features and practices on both the national and local levels. By identifying those features that are
most useful in promoting mobility friendly communities across the nation and comparing them
with the policies and infrastructure in place locally, a clearer picture can be formed regarding
necessary changes and future work needed for Delaware.
Currents in Mobility Friendly Design – A National Perspective
The problems associated with public transportation and mobility are not isolated to Delaware, or
even to the United States. Worldwide, policymakers and universities are struggling to
successfully and sufficiently address the problems associated with inequitable and unsustainable
transportation infrastructure and the inefficiencies or auto dependence. This wide field of
research, experimental design, and policymaking has yielded a variety of policies, methods, and
design practices. Each has been met with a correspondingly wide range of success and failure.
From the identified successes, however, some important information can be drawn regarding the
best and most effective methods for Delaware. In fact, when analyzing mobility friendly design
practices across the nation’s communities, the most effective mobility-related programs share an
identifiable set of design features that seem to support the goals of mobility described above. The
ten identified design features are listed and described below:
1. Mix of Land Uses and Housing Types: Development that supports efficient multi-modal
transportation infrastructure in a workable framework most often encourages an integration
of land uses (e.g., residential, commercial, institutional, open space, etc.) as well as a mix of
housing types and densities (e.g., single family homes, townhouses, apartment buildings,
etc.). This mix not only allows for a diverse and interesting community, but also decreases
the dependence upon highway corridors to interconnect land uses.
2. Grid-Like Interconnected Street Systems: Interconnection of street systems decreases
individuals’ dependence upon major corridors for transportation and makes walking or
bicycling much more feasible. Grid-like streets provide intersections that can be more
accommodating for pedestrians and offer a “human scale” alternative to the “auto scale” of
many highways.
1
S.L. Suen and C.G.B. Mitchell, “Accessible Transportation and Mobility,” Transportation in the New Millennium: State of the
Art and Future Directions, Perspectives from Transportation Research Board Standing Committees, Transportation Research
Board, 2000, <http://www.trb.org>.
Mobility Friendly Design Standards
Overview Summary
2
3. Public Spaces as the Focus of Development: Open space, public areas, and parks can provide
some of the most mobility friendly and attractive areas available to a community. A
development that uses public areas as focal points formally establishes the importance of the
community and the value of non-auto modes of travel and recreation.
4. Managed Density: In order to support public transit systems and other multi-modal design
infrastructure, developments must be designed to support minimum densities. However, this
concept does not necessarily have to translate into an “urban” environment. In fact, a mix of
housing types and land uses as described above can meet the density demands of an efficient
transit system while offering many choices to residents and businesses.
5. Universal Accessibility: The importance of accommodating people of all ability levels
through design has been a major component of mobility for many years. For individuals who
are unable to utilize auto-related transportation infrastructure, accessibility by design
becomes an essential part of the built environment. In order to ensure that the needs of all
individuals are satisfied, all public spaces, including transportation infrastructure, should be
designed for access and reasonable use by all people.
6. Pedestrian-Friendly Infrastructure: Development focused solely on automotive transportation
often ignores the needs of individuals who choose to (or must) travel on foot. Infrastructure,
such as sidewalks and crosswalks, that is well-designed to accommodate the needs of
pedestrians, enrich the walking experience, and enhance pedestrians’ safety plays an essential
role in mobility friendly design. Also, the maintenance of this infrastructure also plays a key
role in sustaining the mobility friendly public environment.
7. Multi-Modal Design and Support: Facilitating the most efficient and convenient transitions
between modes of travel is an essential part of designing for mobility. Public amenities and
infrastructure that allow individuals to shift from mode to mode easily and quickly encourage
the use of alternate means of travel and ensure accessibility for everyone.
8. Public Facility Location and Transportation Management: Well-planned facility location and
transportation infrastructure and services has potentially vital importance for a range of local
and regional residents. Even small differences in the location of schools or senior centers,
coupled with well-designed transportation support structures and services, can translate into
significant changes in the usefulness and accessibility of these facilities.
9. Integration of Bicycle- and Pedestrian-Related Recreation Areas: Mobility within a
community does not necessarily mean transportation from place to place. In many cases,
walking and bicycling infrastructure is an essential integrated component of recreational
facilities in a town or development. Planned trails designed into new developments can
increase the vitality of a community and enrich the experience of living there.
10. Managed Parking: Carefully planned development that includes efficient and aestheticallypleasing parking facilities helps to preserve community viewscapes while allowing for free
use of automobiles. Parking management can also facilitate the most efficient use of
developed land, opening up space for more pedestrian-friendly areas.
Mobility Friendly Design Standards
Overview Summary
3
Together, these ten identified design features encompass a comprehensive approach to
establishing and supporting mobility friendly communities. In practice, these design features
have been used individually and in combination to facilitate responsible and thoughtful
development across the nation. Numerous community planning and design theories and holistic
policy sets, comprising numerous combinations of these features, form the basis of policymaking
and development for practitioners and theorists. These include:
•
Transit Oriented Design (TOD): This development approach involves compact, mixeduse development near new or existing public transportation infrastructure that serves
housing, transportation, and neighborhood goals. In many cases, TOD incorporates welldesigned, multi-modal infrastructure and transit support structures. Its pedestrian-oriented
design encourages residents and workers to drive their cars less and ride mass transit
more.
•
Universal Design: The intent of universal design is to make the built environment more
usable by as many people as possible at little or no extra cost and without the need for
adaptation or specialized design. Universal design focuses on accessibility and ease of
use, building on the premise that designs implemented for the least capable will transmit
measurable benefits to the entire community.
•
Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND), Neo-Traditional Design (NTD), and New
Urbanism: These three approaches tend to share a significant number of characteristics
and essential features. The purpose of these approaches is to allow for the development of
fully integrated, pedestrian-oriented mixed-use neighborhoods. Many of the provisions
adapt urban conventions that were common in the United States from colonial times until
the 1940s and historically were based on the following design principles:
- All neighborhoods have identifiable centers and edges.
- Retail and recreation areas are readily accessible by non-vehicular means.
- Uses and housing types are mixed and in close proximity to one another.
- Street networks are interconnected and blocks are small.
- Civic buildings are given prominent sites throughout the neighborhood.
•
Smart Growth: Smart growth development policies aim to prevent urban sprawl and
pollution and reduce the profligate use of non-renewable fuels marked by excessive
dependency on private cars in industrialized countries. Such policies emphasize
sustainability, dense development, mass transit, car-free (or “pedestrianized”) areas,
children’s rights, cycle trails, pathways, and other elements of a less-industrialized
lifestyle.
Mobility Friendly Design in Delaware
State, county, and local authorities in Delaware have demonstrated a dedication to the concepts
forwarded by mobility friendly design through a number of policies, practices, and initiatives.
Most, if not all, of the design features and comprehensive applicative approaches have been used
in one or more development projects in the state.
Mobility Friendly Design Standards
Overview Summary
4
Specific mobility friendly design approaches can be readily identified in documented policies,
plans, and procedural guides. While certainly not an exhaustive list, some examples are
described below:
•
Transit Oriented Design (TOD): TOD and multi-modal design elements have been
incorporated into several development policies and ordinances, including: New Castle
County’s Comprehensive Plan, Unified Development Code (UDC), and TOD Study;
DelDOT’s Pedestrian Plan, Mobility Friendly Design Study, and Delaware Transit
Corporation Bus Stop Policy; and WILMAPCO’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan.
•
Universal Design: Providing for universal accessibility for all users in the transportation
system is an important guiding principle for the Delaware Architectural Accessibility
Board and has been incorporated into New Castle County’s UDC and DelDOT’s
Delaware Transit Corporation (DART) policies.
•
TND, NTD, and New Urbanism: Major elements of these approaches can be found in
New Castle County’s UDC and DelDOT’s Mobility Friendly Design Study, TND Study,
and general policy structure.
•
Smart Growth: Livable Delaware, the state’s smart growth policy initiative that was
established in 2001 and traces its roots back almost three decades, has altered policies in
all state agencies and has facilitated thoughtful planning activities at every level of
government.
Observations and Future Needs
While it seems clear that many of Delaware’s administrative bodies are now addressing the
challenge of creating and maintaining mobility friendly transportation systems, the sufficiency of
past and present activities and policies as well as the need for future work remains to be
determined. A number of tasks must be undertaken to effectively examine and reach conclusions
regarding the extent to which state and local policymakers have taken into account nationallyrecognized mobility friendly trends and policies. This would provide a basis for determining
which issues, strategies, or policy structures should be considered or utilized in the following
discussions: 1) how well existing mobility friendly provisions are working, 2) which specific
policies and practices are appropriate for Delaware and its communities, and 3) how the policies
and practices could be best implemented. The challenges for accomplishing this are twofold. One
challenge is to determine the most productive way to bring together and facilitate a team of
knowledgeable experts and citizens to carry out this assessment. The second challenge is to
formulate their conclusions into proposals that can be adopted and applied at the state and
community levels along with methods to monitor how well they are working once implemented.
Ultimately, the challenge to all involved in this dialogue is the refinement of Delaware’s
legislative and political framework with the goal of creating and maintaining more effective,
efficient, and sustainable design standards that will ensure the vitality, safety, and health of
Delaware’s communities.
Mobility Friendly Design Standards
Overview Summary
5
Institute for Public Administration
College of Human Services, Education & Public Policy
University of Delaware
180 Graham Hall
Newark, DE 19716-7380
phone: 302-831-8971 e-mail: ipa@udel.edu
fax: 302-831-3488
www.ipa.udel.edu
The Institute for Public Administration (IPA) is a public service, education and research center that links the resource
capacities of the University of Delaware with the complex public policy and management needs of governments and
related nonprofit and private organizations. IPA provides direct staff assistance, research, policy analysis, training,
and forums while contributing to the scholarly body of knowledge. Program areas include civic education, conflict
resolution, health care policy, land use planning, organizational development, school leadership, state and local
management, water resources planning, and women's leadership. IPA supports and enhances the educational
experiences of students through the effective integration of applied research, professional development opportunities,
and internships. Jerome Lewis is the director of the Institute and can be reached at 302-831-8971.
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer
The University of Delaware is committed to assuring equal opportunity to all persons and does not discriminate on the basis
of race, color, gender, religion, ancestry, national origin, sexual orientation, veteran status, age, or disability in its educational
programs, activities, admissions, or employment practices as required by Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Title
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the Americans with Disabilities Act, other applicable statutes
and University policy. Inquiries concerning these statutes and information regarding campus accessibility should be referred to
the Affirmative Action Officer, 305 Hullihen Hall, (302) 831-2835 (voice), (302) 831-4563 (TDD).