Policy Analysis of Open Streets Programs and Street Closures as Policy Tools
Johann Weber, Georgia Institute of Technology
Executive Summary
About the Project: Though street festivals are commonplace around the world, the
recurring closure of a street space to motor vehicle traffic for the purposes of
improving public health, boosting business, and fostering community is a relatively
new development. These so-called “Open Streets” programs (or “Ciclovías”) are
structured like recurring special events, but are undertaken by local governments
and partners in order to accomplish particular policy goals and foster policy
outcomes, including supporting local businesses, encouraging active lifestyles,
fostering alternative transportation modes, and building stronger bonds within the
community. This project seeks to better understand these programs and their
impacts, particularly on local communities and businesses, by using both a localized
survey and a comparative case study employing stakeholder interviews.
Methods: This research includes both a quantitative and qualitative component.
The Atlanta Streets Alive survey collected data on business impacts and experiences,
including questions intended to capture changes in retail sales, frequency of visits,
level of involvement, customer feedback, and overall perceptions. The survey goal
was to capture the experience of businesses with regards to a local Open Streets
program. A comparative case study was also used to illuminate contextual variables
that may affect the impact of such programs. Interviews were conducted with key
stakeholders (namely program organizers and sponsors) from case locations
including Portland, San Antonio, Austin, Savannah, Charleston, Rome, and Macon.
This case comparison informs an analysis of factors influencing program frequency,
organization, size, location, and funding, as well as providing guidance and policy
recommendations for both current and future programs. Finally, a comprehensive
review of the associated research literature will supplement findings to form the
basis of final policy recommendations.
Purpose: The goal of the research is to identify the impact that Open Streets
programs have on their corridors and the associated areas, how these programs are
implemented and operated, and to identify what implications the programs have for
the use of street closures as a recurring policy tool. The aim is to better understand
what benefits and challenges exist in the programs currently, as well as what has led
some programs to be expanded into a regular operation of the space or a more
recurring phenomenon, and provide useful recommendations for existing and
future programs.
Results: Limited responses to the business survey were insufficient for statistical
analysis, but sufficient for qualitative discussion. Responses were heavily mixed,
with some businesses observing reduced foot traffic and revenue during the day of
the program, and others experiencing increased traffic and revenue (as well as some
seeing more traffic and less revenue). Likewise, while some businesses positively
valued the exposure and activities, others were limited by the closure of the street
or their position along the route. Though a majority of businesses were supportive
of the program returning, regardless of their particular sales on that day, a few
businesses were not supportive. Interestingly, none of the businesses were
particularly engaged in the program, electing to conduct business as usual; this may
have limited their ability to draw in program participants (future research here is
needed).
The case study identified some similarities and differences among the case
cities. All the large cities saw large average turnouts, though some were higher than
others; small cities’ programs were similar, though attendance, route size, and costs
were scaled down. Semi-annual programs were the norm, with some variation
based on considerations of resources, weather, and stakeholder interest. Costs per
attendee were fairly similar, particularly across larger programs (smaller programs
were less consistent). In every case a large private sponsor was critical, and the city
government was closely involved if not in planning then in funding. In all cases nonprofit organizations played central roles in organization and implementation, and
public entities supported them. Programs expressed common goals related to
economic development, transportation, public health, and community development.
To accomplish these goals, they used a variety of programming including group
activities, special business involvement, and open space for interaction. Programs
appear to be more successful at accomplishing goals when program structure and
features are tailored directly to program goals, rather than allowed to develop
freeform.
Conclusions and Recommendations: This study of Open Streets programs
identified a number of positive opportunities. Programs demonstrated the ability to
increase participant physical activity, generate increase revenue and business
traffic, improve community interaction and perception, and encourage alternative
modes of transportation. However, programs require a great deal of planning and
close interaction with stakeholders throughout the program. In addition, the
quantity of resources needed to make a program successful and sustainable is nontrivial. With that said, a few specific recommendations may help to optimize Open
Streets programs: Firstly, goal setting is an obvious but critical first step. Secondly,
involve as many stakeholders as possible as early as possible, and in whatever ways
are feasible. Thirdly, match the program features to the goals identified. By keeping
in mind specific goals, route choices, street closures, and program frequency
decisions can all be made to optimize desired outcomes. Finally, program evaluation
is a useful step not only for validating the investment (capturing attendance,
economic impacts, activity levels, and community outcomes), but also for learning
and improving the program over time. Though this study is not exhaustive or
without its limitations, these are confident recommendations and will serve any
non-profit or public entity considering an Open Streets program well. Additional
recommendations for existing programs are provided as well.
The Issue
Cities are increasingly facing challenges that are not easily understood or
addressed. Many of these challenges are what might be considered “wicked
problems” (Rittel and Webber 1973): these problems are not easily defined, have no
stopping rule or exhaustible set of possible solutions, and are often intertwined with
other problems in a set of feedback loops. For example, many cities have been faced
with decreased investment in their central business districts as a result of increased
suburbanization, made possible by inexpensive fuel and housing opportunities,
plentiful transportation budgets, and externalized costs (congestion, pollution). Any
attempt to spur increased development in a downtown business district, or to draw
renewed interest in local businesses and industries, must combat the numerous
mechanisms which support the national retailer located on the periphery of a city.
These wicked problems have led to increased interest in pursuing policy tools that
might combat interrelated problems with a broader approach, rather than
attempting to engineer a “right” answer. Consider Table 1:
Table 1. Intersection of the Issues
Economic development is a priority for municipalities of all sizes; however, it is a
problem that is tied closely to non-economic factors, such as community bonds and
confidence and the very physical health of the populace. As such, addressing
economic development and failing to address the associated factors may risk a very
incomplete response, and worse, a response that is eroded over time by negative
feedback mechanisms accelerated by other intersecting challenges.
Open Streets programs have become increasingly common over the last half
decade as municipalities, non-profits, and private partners have all realized the
opportunity to use a recurring community-level program, centered on the closure of
a street to motor vehicle traffic, as one piece of a more creative policy strategy. Open
Streets offers the chance for community residents to interact directly with each
other and their local businesses, and in doing so to become more physical active.
This increased activity and engagement in turn encourage a return to businesses
and a renewed interest in the community itself; by recurring this program, a
municipality might provide an invaluable boost not only in direct benefits but also
by turning the feedback mechanisms to their advantage. Of course, as with any
policy tool there are challenges and costs involved, but the goal of using a street
closure as a policy tool is worth exploring further, in the search for a creative
strategy for solving a diverse suite of issues.
Introduction to Ciclovía
Closing streets to motor vehicle traffic is not a particularly novel activity;
streets festivals and special events of all shapes and sizes have done so for as long as
there have been streets to close. Yet these one-off events have tended to require
street closures merely as a byproduct of the scale or location of their activities. In
most of these cases the street is merely a chance location unfortunately impacted by
a concert or fair. However, the last few decades have seen the street closure used in
a novel way and to significant effect. These programs, commonly referred to as
“Open Streets” or “Ciclovía” (Spanish for ‘bike lane’), focus on the conversion of a
traditional roadway (one where automobiles are the dominant mode) into a large
public venue where particular public goals can be accomplished. For example, an
Open Streets program might include large areas dedicated to physical activity, such
as dance classes, sports fields, or simply space to walk, run, or bike without fear of
traffic. The program might include business specials, extended hours, and street
seating to draw customers into businesses they hadn’t tried or on days they might
not otherwise visit. It might also create large areas for visitors to mix and mingle
and visit non-profit vendor tents, engage in public dialogue, or enjoy entertainment.
In these different ways, the closure of the street can potentially be used as an
economic development tool, drawing attention to neglected areas or building
business in a prominent corridor (perhaps even drawing new tenants and
investment). It can also be a tool for encouraging physical activity and combating
public health issues such as obesity, cardiac illness, and diabetes. It may even build
stronger communities and foster positive relationships with neighbors,
neighborhoods, and the city at large. The policy impacts associated with these
programs have made them increasingly appealing to municipalities of all sizes as
ways to affect positive change in their communities. Unlike special events, which are
tailored to draw tourism dollars into the community, Open Streets programs are
focused on providing direct opportunities for activity, engagement, interaction, and
development at a community level.
Literature Review
While open streets programs have been around in the Americas since the late
1960s, the last few years have truly seen a steep increase in their popularity and
presence. Though the most iconic example of the open streets program, Bogotá’s
Ciclovía, is almost 40 years old (having started in 1974), most North American cities
have only recently become aware of the concept. One estimate identified ten
examples of such programs in 2006; by 2011 that number had climbed to more than
70 (Streets Plan 2012). With this growth in program experimentation has come a
slower but still present interest in better understanding the programs and their
operation, organization, and impacts.
A sizable portion of the literature on open streets-style programs has focused
on Ciclovía itself, unsurprising considering its prominence and the size of the
program (it currently occurs every Sunday across 70 miles of streets and can
include more than 1 million people per week). Some of this work has been focused
on evaluation (Montes et al 2012, Wright and Montezuma, Torres et al 2013), while
others have looked at factors influencing its success (del Castillo et al 2011, Cervero
et al 2009). Despite the increasing popularity of Ciclovía as a research subject,
others cities have also drawn attention, including San Francisco (Zieff et al 2010), St.
Louis (Hipp et al 2012), Los Angeles (Lugo 2013), and Chicago (Mason et al 2011).
Policy Impacts
Since open streets programs are intended to generate positive public
impacts, program evaluation is a popular and valuable task for both third party
researchers and program organizers. For some programs, such as Portland’s Sunday
Parkways, the scale of public financial support for the program is such that a regular
annual report is required and includes discussion of program implementation,
operation, and evaluation (including participant surveys and interviews). Others,
such as St. Louis Open Streets, have been the site of both organizer and academic
evaluation. Regardless of the party undertaking the assessment, and the location of
the program, the findings seem to support some general conclusions.
First among these conclusions is that participants experience much higher
levels of physical activity than they might otherwise (Torres et al 2013, Montes et al
2013, Zieff et al 2010, Mason et al 2011). They also express greater feelings of
community solidarity (Torres et al 2013, Lugo 2013) and positive perceptions of the
community (Hipp et al 2012, Mason et al 2011) as a result of the program. The
benefits associated with the increased physical activity were even found to be
valuable enough to offset the cost of the program by a factor of 2.3 in San Francisco
and 3.2 in the case of Bogotá (Montes et al 2012). Retailers and restaurants appear
to experience higher than normal sales on a regular basis (Zieff et al 2013), and
demand for additional vendors in Bogotá is sufficient to boost local employment
relative to non-program days (Wright and Montezuma). In St. Louis, researchers
found that 73% of participants spent money at a business during the program, and
68% became newly aware of a store/restaurant (Hipp et al 2012). In addition, one
study found that partnerships built during the program fostered additional
community efforts afterward (Mason et al 2011). These impacts provide
preliminary and general support for the value of such programs, but they also serve
to provide some guidance on factors identified in each study as influential for
program success.
Factors Influencing Success
With any large program such as Ciclovía, it’s extremely difficult to isolate
particular components to which success can be attributed. However, some efforts to
survey attendees have found that residential proximity to program routes is
associated with higher participation (Cervero et al 2009, Sarmiento et al 2010,
Mason et al 2011), which does suggest that route selection will be heavily
responsible for attendance. Attendance, in turn, was found in another study to be far
more responsible for the size of impact outcomes than was the size of the route
(Montes et al 2012). On the planning and organization side, Bogotá organizers
identified the important of having support from both smaller and large scales of
government, and the participation of stakeholders in program organization and
implementation (del Castillo et al 2011).
Program Organization and Features
Streets Plan, a partnership of various non-profits, conducted the largest
cross-comparison of Open Streets programs in North America to date in early 2012
(Streets Plan 2012). In their analysis of the 70 programs they identified at that
point, they found a variety of funding and operation structures. Sorting by
leadership organization and funding source, they identified the following typology:
Table 2. Open Streets Organization Typology
Model (named after the first city,
Leadership
Funding Source
Seattle
Cleveland
San Francisco
Publicly funded
Privately funded
Privately funded
chronologically, to employ this structure)
Portland
Publicly led
Non-profit led
Publicly/Non-profit
led
Publicly led
Winnipeg
Non-profit led
Savannah
Kentucky
Public/Privately led
Public/Privately led
Public/Privately
funded
Public/Privately
funded
Privately funded
Publicly/Privately
funded
This typology demonstrates the frequency of partnerships between public, private,
and non-profit entities in such programs, and highlights the diversity of approaches
that can be successful for program implementation. The same diversity appears
when looking at program characteristics. Consider the following table constructed
of ranges in program characteristics among those programs identified within the
Streets Plan comparison:
Table 3. Open Streets Program Characteristics
Feature
Minimum
Host city population
12,000
Average Attendance
300
Route length
.2 miles
Frequency of program
Annually
Maximum
8,000,000
100,000
32.6 miles
Weekly
In addition to wide variation in program size, frequency, and attendance, there are
also variations in program goals, evaluation methods, and the type of sponsoring
agency (privately funded may mean a health care provider, a grocery chain, a soft
drink manufacturer, or any number of other entities). Of those programs reviewed
by Streets Plan, most appeared to be focused around community development and
physical activity goals, with a few also aiming to generate interest in local business
corridors. Additional goals identified include encouraging interaction across diverse
neighborhoods, drawing attention to parks and other recreational resources, and
supporting non-motorized modes of transport.
Program features included more than just a range of route locations and
distances. Some may opt to incorporate public parks, or connect two park spaces by
the route; others are heavily residential and bridge neighborhoods that are
traditionally separated by roadway infrastructure. Programs may bring in outside
vendors, or choose not to in order to focus on existing businesses. Activity centers
might be organized, or large spaces made available for activities to develop
organically. Taken together, this paints the picture of a program that is flexible to
the needs and features of its community. Given sufficient grassroots, communitylevel enthusiasm for the program (another common feature across the large
majority of programs), it’s likely that the outcome of any given program will be
simultaneously similar to others, and very much unique.
Research Questions and Goals
There is a small but meaningful quantity of literature devoted to the Open
Streets program, particularly Ciclovía. Amongst the limited comparative work, the
focus has been on creating meaningful typologies and identifying the range of
program characteristics. This is a sizable and crucial task, as program organization
and operation vary from site to site but always influence the degree of the
program’s success. As such, contributing to the understanding of program
organization and operation is an important research task.
R1:
How are Open Streets programs organized, and operated? What goals
are associated with the programs?
While some research has worked to classify programs according to their
organizational and funding arrangements, no work before has considered the
variation in program goals and how they may influence program outcomes, as well
as how they may be related to program organization in order to better support
desired outcomes. This leads to a second research question, focused on the
assessment of impacts and how they may play a role in program development:
R2:
What benefits do stakeholders see from the programs? How do these
benefits influence program structure, organization, and/or funding?
Among the potential desired outcomes are the more oft-discussed physical activity
levels and community perceptions, but there may also be economic development
goals. As such, a better appraisal of how Open Streets programs impact businesses
along the program route, as well as how such programs may serve economic
development goals more broadly, is of great interest for this project.
R3:
How do Open Streets impact businesses along the route?
Considering the policy goals and impacts of Open Streets programs, of particular
interest is better understanding of what factors influence the frequency of program
occurrence, and whether there is interest on the part of stakeholders to increase the
frequency of the program, or expand the program in other ways (such as more
locations or a larger route).
R4(a): What factors influence the frequency of recurrence of Open Streets
programs?
R4(b): Is there interest on the part of stakeholders to increase the frequency
of the programs?
By investigating these questions, we hope to have a better grasp on what
differentiates these programs in a meaningful way from permanent pedestrian
streets, and what role, if any, the special-event component plays in the programs.
Methods
A dual qualitative-quantitative mixed methodology was selected to evaluate
Open Streets programs. First, a survey was constructed and provided to businesses
that directly fronted the May 19th, 2013 Atlanta Streets Alive route. The purpose of
this survey was to better appraise the impact that Open Streets programs may have
on businesses in densely mixed-use corridors with a high representation of retail
and restaurant establishments. As such, the survey included questions about the
business’ sales receipts for the week prior, day of, and week following, the event. It
also inquired about the business’ perceptions of the program, customer feedback,
level of participation in the program, and awareness of the program, as well as
general reception of the program and concept. It was made available to over 80
businesses by way of walk-in distribution of a link to the survey instrument (made
available online to facilitate ease of completion for participants), as well as e-mail
distribution and follow-up e-mails.
The business survey supplements the central focus of the research, a
comparative case study of 8 different recurring programs similar in concept (with a
fair amount of variation) to Open Streets-style programs. The cases were selected
on the basis of both their similarities and their differences, and include four large
cities (Atlanta, Austin, Portland, and San Antonio) and four small/medium cities
(Charleston, Macon, Rome, and Savannah). All but one of these cities has a program
built around a street closure; the exception (Macon) was selected to better
understand the role of street closures. As noted in the literature review, variation in
program organization and operation is common, and the cases demonstrate this
diversity. Nonetheless, they represent a range of applicable examples, and are more
than sufficient to conduct a critical analysis of Open Streets programs as policy tools,
as well as generate guidance for future program development.
The case comparison was developed through document review and
stakeholder interviews. Public documents (including annual and event reports, web
pages, media publicity, and social media representation) were reviewed for each
case, and a list of central stakeholders was generated (usually consisting of an
organizing entity and/or municipality, and a primary sponsor). Secondary interview
contacts were gathered from primary contacts, for a limited snowball interview
technique. No less than two interviews were conducted for each given case, with
some cases featuring three interviews based upon referrals from primary interview
participants.
Survey Results
Despite reaching out to the full suite of merchants along the Atlanta Streets
Alive program route through personal visits, email contact, and numerous followups both in person and via email, only ten merchants completed the survey. Of these
ten, only seven fully completed the survey, so any discussion of the survey results is
limited to some general observations and the discussion of specific responses from
merchants who completed the survey. Of those businesses who reported revenue
figures, only one business reported increased revenue on the day of Atlanta Streets
Alive. At the same time, only two businesses reported a meaningful decrease in
revenue, and one attributed this in large part to poor weather conditions (the day of
the program was rainy until midway through the actual event). Of the nine
businesses open on the day of the program (the tenth was a service firm), four
reported higher than normal traffic in their business, another four less than normal
traffic, and one the same level of traffic. This did not appear to be related to location,
though 3 out of the 4 businesses reporting higher traffic were centrally located on
the route, closer to activity centers. While a number of businesses along the route
offered expanded seating, special activities, and other draws, none of the
respondents reported any such efforts. One merchant was open on a day that would
be otherwise closed for business, and reported that it was not worthwhile from a
direct revenue perspective. Interestingly, of the five merchants who were
independent merchants (i.e. theirs is a unique location) only one saw decreased foot
traffic. Size of business (as measured through annual revenue) was similar across
those with more traffic and less traffic.
Awareness of the program amongst respondent businesses was fairly high
(seven out of nine were aware of it beforehand), and they attributed their
awareness to a range of exposure (including beverage reps, Atlanta Bicycle Coalition
volunteers, employees, or previous experience with the program). Despite the
mixed immediate results for respondent businesses, six out of the nine businesses
who answered the question would support a return of the program to the corridor.
One respondent noted that “sales are sales”, and encouraged a return of the
program annually. None of the business reported any direct feedback from
customers on the program.
Table 4 identifies some positive and negative aspects of Open Streets from an
economic development perspective, as well as lessons drawn from merchant
responses and the case comparison that follows this section. Since the sample size is
insufficient to speak in any statistically meaningful way, these points merely capture
the range of positive and negative outcomes expressed and/or identified by
respondents and stakeholders. While opportunities for increased revenue, visibility,
and traffic are clearly presented by Open Streets programs, it’s also clear that it may
increase the burden on businesses to be engaged, as well as hinder businesses that
rely upon auto access (for example, there is a block of Peachtree featuring a high
density of furniture stores), or businesses which are too close or too far from
activity centers. Based on these positive and negative factors, some practical
guidance can be crafted: firstly, that businesses should be actively involved in
planning and should be encouraged to be engaged in the program in a way that
matches their business. Secondly, secondary access routes may be critical for some
businesses, and come-back coupons or other return incentives may also prove
helpful. Thirdly, the placement of the route and activities matters, as activities may
distract from adjacent businesses, but also draw participants to segments of the
route.
Table 4. Survey Lessons
Pros
Increased revenue and foot
traffic for businesses
actively engaging
participants
Cons
May require additional hours
and/or staffing
Lessons
Work with businesses to
evaluate their needs and
encourage businesses to be
engaged
Exposure to broad, semicaptive audience
Consider secondary access
routes, provide come-back
coupons
Environment supports
window shopping, walk-ins
Businesses reliant upon auto
traffic (furniture stores,
hotels) may require
alternative access routes
Activities may compete with
businesses for attention
Businesses along heavily
visited sections of route
saw high traffic
Businesses farther from
activity centers may see
declined traffic
Location of businesses along
route matters; route must be
carefully planned w/
businesses
Offset activities from dense
commercial blocks
Case Comparison
Case programs were selected to capture the variety of options available to an
open streets program, to better convey the importance of certain commonalities as
well as the suite of choices available when planning a new program and organizing
its operation. Table 5 shows the differences between each of the case programs,
from program route and frequency to cost and attendance. An annual orientation to
programs is common, as many cities conceive of their program as an annual
operation with one or more specific executions (which are not consistent in date or
location). The two monthly programs stand out in this regard, as they reorient
themselves throughout the year on a consistent basis. Route sizes and shapes also
vary, though these cases all fall on the shorter end of the established range of
programs identified in the literature. Cost also varies greatly, though it appears to
scale with the size of the city, the scale of the program’s goals, and their ability to
capture large sponsors. The most expensive programs were larger in route size,
occurred more frequently (thus requiring ongoing organizational staff
employment), and had more aggressive promotional campaigns. They also included
more amenities, such as portable restrooms and free bottled water. While the
largest programs dwarfed the others in cost, they also generated sizable crowds,
and all had seen growing participation over the last few years. Smaller programs
experienced smaller crowds, though more aggressive promotional campaigns
seemed to draw larger crowds to even the smallest locations, as evidenced by the
success of Charleston’s 2nd Sunday program which is promoted by the City, its
sponsors, and all participating businesses.
Table 5. Case Cities
Title
Frequency
Route
length
Cost per
occurrence
Organizer
Major
sponsors
Average
attendance
Cost per
attendee
Atlanta
Austin
Streets
Alive
3x
annually
2-6 mi
Viva!
Streets
Annual
San
Antonio
Siclovia
Portland
Charleston
Savannah
Rome
Macon*
2nd Sunday
on King
Monthly
Play Streets
2x annually
Streets
Alive
Annual
First
Friday
Monthly
1.5 mi
2x
annually
2.2 mi
Sunday
Parkways
Monthly
(May-Sep)
6-9 mi
.6 mi
.2 mi
.56 mi
$35,000
$40,000
$75,000
$93,000
$9,000
$12,500
$2,000
~1 sq
mi
$1,500
Nonprofit
Coke,
City
Partnersh
ip
HEB, City
Nonprofit
HEB,
City
Public
Non-profit
Partnership
Public
Public
Kaiser
Permanent
e, City
King St
Marketing
Group
Bike
Walk
NW GA
17,500
20,000
45,000
20,000
10,000
Partnership
for a
Healthier
America
900
900
Robins
Federal
Credit
Union
2,000
$2
$2
$1.66
$4.50
$.90
$13.9
$2.2
$.75
*Macon’s program does not include a street closure
The organizational arrangements present in the case cities demonstrate
some of the range of options available when considering an open streets program.
Many of the most frequently recurring programs are operated by a public entity;
since the recurring nature of the program demands continuing oversight and a close
relationship with a municipality to manage street closures, permits, and the like, this
might be expected. However, public entities are limited in their ability to collect
sponsor donations and absorb the risks associated with the program. This means
that partnerships are highly appealing, with even the public-led programs bringing
in a smaller partner to absorb fundraising and liability. Some partnerships bring
together a public entity and a private for-profit group, such as an event management
firm. Others partner the public entity with a local non-profit. In three of the cases
the non-profit actually took the lead, with a range of support and/or involvement
from the local public entities. In two cases (Atlanta and San Antonio) the program
began with greater public entity involvement, and then transitioned toward most of
the operational burden being on the non-profit partner. In others, such as Portland,
the public entity stepped up its involvement over time. In none of the cases was the
public entity not involved somehow; likewise, all of them involve some level of
participation from a partner non-profit organization.
On the sponsor front, larger programs unsurprisingly had larger sponsors,
with all programs reporting that they gathered larger sponsors as the program drew
more attention and established itself in the community. Smaller programs more
commonly identified one central sponsor who can support the program nearly in
full in exchange for title rights and promotion. Larger programs instead featured a
number of presenting sponsors who provide the central funding backbone and then
a volume of additional sponsors to provide cash or in-kind support as possible.
Sponsors identified a number of incentives to partner with a program, including
shared goals, promotional value, and community interaction. Some sponsors have
supported the program as a way to further their own mission or sub-mission, while
others view it as a way to give back to their community and foster their image as
community conscientious businesses.
Program organizers noted the importance of setting clear program goals in
order to provide a vision and guidance for organizing the program and evaluating its
success. Table 6 depicts the goals for each program as identified by document
review and interviews. The three most common goals are to increase physical
activity, foster community interaction, and encourage economic development.
Community development is the most common goal, followed closely by increased
physical activity, then economic development. Four case cities identified either
physical activity or economic development goals, but not both: this demonstrates
that while there are opportunities to accomplish both goals in one program (note
the other four cases listing both goals), the strategies may be different in many
regards. Community development was prevalent regardless, while a number of
other goals were present in only a few of the cases.
Table 6. Program Goals
Increase
physical
activity
Economic
Development
Community
Development
Promote
alternative
transportatio
n
Promote
parks/new
facilities
Encourage
interaction
across
communities
Atlanta
Austin
San
Antonio
Portland
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Charleston
X
X
X
X
Savannah
Rome
X
X
X
X
Macon
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Multiple interview participants noted the importance of pairing program
features to program goals in order to maximize the impact of the program. For
example, physical activity goals demanded a significant change to the space, hence
the use of the road closure in all cases where that goal was present. The closure of
the street provided space for participants to bike and walk freely, and also
generated open space in which programs could hold a range of group activities such
as Zumba, yoga, dance classes, soccer, basketball, and even special activities like
rock climbing, clay sculpting, or “bad poetry reading”. The provision of group
activity space was common, and while not strictly tied to community development
goals, participants noted it as a valuable tool for fostering interaction. In the same
way, economic development goals require close coordination and involvement with
the business community to be fully effective. Among these cases that meant either
extended hours and special deals, opening the business into the street (hanging
clothing racks outside, expanding outdoor seating), providing special activities, or
even special open container ordinances. Direct participation from community
partners (local non-profits, advocacy groups, resource centers, faith-based orgs,
etc.) was also very common, with interview participants noting it as a valuable tool
for building relationships and drawing interest, as well as building civic awareness.
Table 7 depicts the suite of general program features present in the case cities.
Table 7. Program Features
Atlanta
Austin
San
Antonio
X
Portland
Charleston
Savannah
Rome
Road closure
X
X
X
X
X
X
Business
Involvement
Dedicated
group
activity
space
Open shared
space
Community
partner
participation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Macon
X
X
X
While only five of the eight case cities had explicit development goals, all
eight worked with the local business community as part of the program. In three
cases this took the form of informing local merchants; the other five actively
involved businesses in the program. Even those programs not specifically aiming to
boost a business corridor were aware of the impacts that a street closure might have
on businesses, and worked closely with local businesses to boost their awareness
and provide them with opportunities to either boost business or at least reduce the
undue impacts that the closure might have for them. Table 8 shows both the range
of development strategies and the impacts observed for each case city. Among the
three cities not seeking to generate development outcomes, these strategies were
limited to contact with businesses during the planning phase. Nonetheless, these
cities all reported a notable amount of positive feedback from businesses along their
program routes, with some businesses reporting higher than normal traffic and/or
sales figures, and consistent support from the businesses for returns of the program
to the corridor.
Table 8. Economic Development and Open Streets
Developm
ent Goals
Development
Program Strategies
Business Impacts Observed
Atlanta
Yes
Dense mixed-use
corridor; businesses
expanded hours,
space, and activities,
outside vendors
excluded
Austin
No
Contact with
businesses during
planning
San
Antonio
No
Portland
Yes
Charlesto
n
Yes
Savannah
No
Rome
Yes
Contact with
businesses during
planning
Outside vendors
excluded, occasional
inclusion of
commercial corridor,
business involvement
Promotion, dense
commercial corridor,
expanded business
space, close business
cooperation, outside
vendors excluded
Contact with
businesses during
planning
Ties into promotion of
major annual event,
dense commercial
corridor
Businesses which were actively engaged in some
way (special activities, open doors, specials) have
reported increased sales; mixed results from
remaining businesses (though businesses along
corridors have consistently asked for a return of
the program or arrival of the program to their
area)
Some businesses reported higher traffic and
exposure, others reported same as usual; appears
that businesses more engaged in the program did
better business
Small retail and restaurant businesses have
reported increased sales and traffic; businesses
have all approved return of program each year
Mixed responses; some corridors have had lower
than normal traffic as potential clients are active
rather than entering businesses (varies greatly
among type of business). Also commercial density
is low.
Majority of businesses have reported it as their
best Sunday of the year (60-65%), with additional
businesses reporting their best day of the month.
All businesses on corridor (regardless of direct
sales boost) are supporters of program
Macon
Yes
Promotion, dense
commercial corridor,
expanded space and
hours, specials, close
business cooperation
Positive reception from the few businesses along
route
Some businesses have expressed increased sales
and promotional benefits; others have reported
that the clientele does not suit their particular
business. Program occurs on Saturday, making it
harder to increase sales over benchmark
Mixed impact directly on businesses (program
occurs on Friday night), though city has seen
notable increase in interest in the area, with
additional investment and development in
downtown recently
Among those cities seeking to generate development outcomes, popular
strategies include the selection of a dense commercial corridor with sufficient
residential density nearby to draw strong crowds, prominent and consistent
promotion of the program through all media (particularly web, social media, and
local news outlets), special business offerings (including extended hours, reduced
prices, outdoor seating/shopping), and the exclusion of any outside vendors. Some
programs worked closely with businesses that rely heavily upon auto access (such
as furniture stores) to provide alternative routes, come-back coupons, and other
incentives to boost their business through the program as well. Businesses have
reported back to organizers mixed results in all cases, with a few consistent trends:
First, businesses that are actively engaged in the program and take advantage of the
crowds do much better sales days than normal, and much higher increases than
other businesses. Also, retailers and restaurants consistently benefit the most from
the programs, with other businesses seeing little direct impact. Finally, in all cases
the program served to support a stronger community identity for the corridor, and
many communities identified increased investment in the corridor over time since
implementation of the program. Put another way, the programs all demonstrated
some form of development outcomes, and were particularly effective where
businesses took full advantage of the opportunity.
Considering the positive development impacts, as well as the positive
responses that all of the case programs reported from participants, local elected
officials, and stakeholders, one might expect a high degree of interest in expanding
the program. After all, if a semi-annual program is working, why not expand it?
However, a common concern presented itself in the interviews: program dilution. It
turns out, if the cases are any indication, there is an optimal balance between the
advantages of a frequently recurring program (like public awareness, ease of
planning, and compounding of outcomes) and the appeal that a “special event” has.
In some cases, as they attempted to expand the program’s frequency they found that
partners had a harder time devoting the same resources, and the impact of each
single event was reduced. At the same time, the draw of the program was slightly
reduced as it became too frequent, with less participants showing up than when the
program was less frequent. The balance of this interest in expanding and the local
reservations about expanding for each case are presented in Table 9.
Table 9. Expansion Considerations
Atlanta
Austin
San
Antonio
Portland
Charleston
Savannah
Interest in expanding
Aim to have program as regular as
possible
Split between interest in
frequency and route size
increases. Currently looking at
increasing frequency and varying
location
Looking at new route choices and
the possibility of having a more
regular program
Interest in expanding scale of
program, not frequency. May
consider additional
neighborhoods however
Residents want it more
frequently, and have considered
expanding it for holiday shopping
season
Some interest; currently aiming
Reservations about expanding
Cost is a barrier; also concerned about not
reducing the special event appeal of the program
without replacing it with the appeal of regularity
Program requires a great deal of human and
financial capital, plus an organizing entity that
can devote to it
Have to secure both the financial support and
the needed manpower
Concern about diluting program impact, and
climate limits available months to hold the
program
Businesses worry about diluting its impact, and
holding the program more often in past has
seemed to reduce its appeal; also, closing street
is complex and costly
Funding is a serious challenge to overcome even
Rome
Macon
just to maintain the program into
future years
Little interest, since program is
paired to an annual event
Attempted it, may consider again
but likely not for some time
just to maintain current program into future
years
Program is currently only tied to one event as a
promotional bolster
Previous attempt diluted impact of program and
made it harder to operate
Table 10 demonstrates that there is an optimal program frequency, and that
it likely varies based upon competing programs, the size of the population, the
locations of the program sites, and the scale of support available for the program. In
almost every case the biggest barrier to even considering expansion (either to more
dates or to bigger routes) was the difficulty of finding additional sponsors for the
program. With sufficient support for the program, more frequent options become
quickly available, as demonstrated by Savannah’s leap from an annual program in
2012 to a semi-annual program in 2013 thanks to a grant from a national partner.
However, even once securing additional resources it appears to behoove organizers
to consider the appropriate expansion strategy for their particular desired
outcomes.
Table 10. Optimal Program Frequency
Pros
Cons
Participants and neighborhood groups
Cost and volunteer requirements
interested in expanding programs
Increases health benefits to participants May dilute the uniqueness of the
program, lead to declining attendance
Expands audience, improves awareness
Balance between frequency of program
and size of program
Recommendations
New Program Suggestions
Before undertaking an Open Streets program, a close partnership (or at least
working relationship) must be formed between a local public entity and one or
more community organizations (likely an existing non-profit with experience in
event organization and operation). A non-profit is critical for soliciting and
coordinating volunteers, securing donations and sponsors, and engaging with other
organizations. Having a public entity involved will make it easier to secure street
closures, work with local communities, and may provide the opportunity to reduce
costs associated with closures, police officers, parks, and so forth. Identifying private
entity sponsors should also be an early priority.
Open streets programs are very diverse. As the lines between activity-based
programs like Ciclovía and development-based street closure programs blur, the
range of options for how a street closure might be employed as a policy tool only
grow larger. As such, goal setting is a critical first step when constructing a program.
While it may be appealing to take advantage of opportunities that arise to expedite
program implementation (i.e. grants, political interest), without a clear set of
program goals to guide program development and organization it will be much
harder to maximize the value of the program. This goal setting process must also
include all stakeholders, as their participation in the program will be directly related
to the effectiveness of the program. Ideally, collaboration with stakeholders should
begin as early as possible and actively encourage the identification of shared goals
and opportunities for utilizing stakeholder resources (money, time, volunteers, inkind donations, direct participation) to accomplish those shared goals. Involving a
diverse suite of stakeholders and participants offers the best opportunity for a
successful program, and may lead to valuable partnerships beyond the program as
well.
Clear program goals can act as guidance when making decisions about
program features. For example, visitors to a weekly program may have a harder
time condoning higher than normal spending behavior, given that the program is a
weekly event and they may return frequently. In addition, businesses have a harder
time offering special deals and discounted prices every week than they do once a
month. For programs like First Friday and 2nd Sunday, the monthly recurrence of
the program becomes an opportunity to draw additional visitors. It also places a
more reasonable financial and managerial burden on sponsors and program
organizations. However, if the program’s goal is to maximize physical activity, then
program frequency should be maximized to make the program a gateway to regular
physical activity. Community development goals are also maximized by higher
program frequency. Route distance, on the other hand, is not strictly critical to a
development program (dependent upon impacts context), but may bridge a great
number of communities with a longer route. On the other hand, a smaller loop may
be more appealing for fostering physical activity, as it makes all activities closely
available to any given participant accessing the program (though it may reduce the
appeal of the route itself as the activity, in the case of runners and cyclists). Consider
table 11:
Table 11. Program structure suggestions
Ideal Features
Economic Development
Goal
Physical Activity
Route location
Consistency of
location
Program
Frequency
Route Length
Prominent retail district
No variation
Mixed-use area
Some variation
Community
Development
Residential area
Variation
Monthly
Weekly
Weekly
.5-1 mile (strip)
2-10 miles (loop)
Program
Features
Variety of free niche
physical activities
Essential
stakeholders
Business involvement
(specials, open seating,
promotion) and
coordination
Local businesses, local
municipality
1-5 miles (block or
strip)
Large open space,
free public activities
Road Closure
At least partial closure
Full closure
Activity-based orgs,
municipality
Community orgs,
places of worship,
officials
Full closure
Table 11 displays some general direction for maximizing program impacts
towards each of three possible program goals, based upon review of existing
programs. By considering the opportunities for program overlap above, an
organizing entity can construct a program to pursue their particular goals (though
by no means is Table 4 exhaustive of all relevant considerations, nor is it presumed
to be strictly correct in all cases). After selecting program goals, the organizer and
partners should consider how the location might facilitate or limit the behavior
they’d like to see generated (i.e. visiting businesses, talking with neighbors, or
engaging in physical activities). Likewise review program activities, involved
stakeholders, program frequency, promotional strategies, and program
naming/branding. By matching the program to its goals, opportunities for overlap
can be identified and conflicts avoided (for example, a program aiming for
development and activity might anchor a route in a park within a dense retail
district and locate activities in areas with less retail, as well as provide plenty of
direct access to businesses so participants can be active and then relax by visiting
restaurants and businesses). This matching is crucial for generating the maximum
impact from a program, an ever-present goal given the tight competition for the
resources of municipalities, sponsors, and non-profit partners.
A final set of suggestions drawn from the case interviews concerns the task of
program evaluation. Program evaluation varies widely across programs; the only
fairly consistent measure of program success employed in all cases is attendance,
with counting methods varying based upon available resources. Larger cities
occasionally employed volunteers, local researchers, and/or contracted program
operators to estimate other program impacts, but little in the way of standard
operating procedures exists for such evaluation. Given the popularity of surveyed
programs, particularly among local elected officials, it may be unsurprising that
evaluation is not always prioritized. Nonetheless, it’s recommended that in addition
to attendance estimates, program organizers should seek to survey businesses to
assess their perceptions and immediate effects, and survey program participants to
identify opportunities for improvement as well as more detailed info about program
participants (I refer readers to Mason and colleagues’ (2011) discussion of program
evaluation for detailed suggestions). Additionally, estimating physical activity
changes and community development impacts, and using those findings as part of
an iterative and critical learning process, will improve program operation and
outcomes.
While not exhaustive, the aforementioned suggestions capture the
fundamental considerations that play into making an open streets program
successful. Additional factors, such as the support of elected officials, learning from
mistakes, the importance of getting it right the first time, and selecting dates that
will reduce the likelihood of poor weather and conflicts, will all arise and play parts.
The impact of these factors will be mitigated, however, by proper planning and a
strong vision for the program which begins with a full suite of stakeholders,
identifies explicitly its goals, structures the program features to match those goals,
and then employs evaluation tools to assess the program and improve it for future
occasions. Table 12 depicts the range of positive opportunities associated with Open
Streets programs, as well as some of the most important requirements and
considerations.
Table 12. Takeaways
Opportunities





Increase physical activity of
participants
Opportunities for increased
revenue and foot traffic
Positive impact on local
community
o Foster community
interaction
Encourage alternative modes
of transportation
Encourage community
collaboration
Requirements




Planning
o Location & Frequency
o Programming/Features
o Road Closure
Stakeholder Coordination
o Planning
o Engagement
Promotion
o Local media
o Social media
o Word of mouth
Resources
o Volunteers
o Money
Program Expansion Recommendations
Reviewing the lessons of other programs offers suggestions not only to those
locations which might consider developing a new program, but also to those
programs which currently exist and may be beginning to face the barriers that stand
between growing attendance figures, securing a major recurring sponsor, and the
like. For these programs, an overhaul of planning may not be feasible or desirable,
so instead attention must be paid to the components of the program that can be
changed in the short term to foster long-term improvements. The first of these
recommendations is to pay close attention to the selection of program locations.
While it’s appealing in many cases to select a corridor that is in need of significant
investment, it may lack the residential density and appeal necessary to easily draw
large volumes of participants. Similarly, dense commercial corridors may provide
programming and appeal, but as they lack the immediate population, connections
may need to be planned to allow residents easy access to the program. Exciting
corridors, particularly iconic streets or streets which have a cultural identity
already, are good candidates for boosting the awareness of a program and drawing a
base of participation, before considering less popular or populated corridors.
Awareness is a major challenge for programs, particularly since the concept
of Open Streets is not always easy to distinguish from events or other programs.
Because of this, the use of aggressive promotional tactics is critical for spreading the
word about the program and each specific occurrence. Consider involving local
media (print, web, and television), a diversity of social media, and utilizing the
media connections of all program partners. On that note, also be sure to continually
pursue new partners and participants for the program. Not only will they help
expand the breadth and scale of the program, but they may also serve to normalize
the program and expand its audience. Look also to existing stakeholder participants
who might not be fully utilized and work to engage them more actively in the
program. Some businesses may feel that the program is not their clientele, but a
clever activity or engagement of the crowd may secure them the interest of an
entirely new clientele. Faith organizations, service firms, and others may not appear
to be interested partners, but their involvement might be beneficial over the long
term for all parties, and should be pursued. Be careful to target new audiences;
enthused, active individuals will find and attend the program regardless, so it
becomes most important to invest resources in ways that will reach new and
perhaps underserved audiences. Consider unique promotional tools and
opportunities.
Finally, program sustainability is of critical importance. To this end,
recurring sponsors are the ultimate goal, and should be courted aggressively by
identifying opportunities for sponsorship and demonstrating program value clearly
and consistently. In some cases one singular sponsor may be ideal; in other cases, a
selection of smaller recurring sponsors will accomplish the same task. Either way,
the value of being able to build a relationship with a sponsor and have the support
needed to devote time between programs to evaluation and improvement is
immeasurable. Develop a sponsor packet that clearly identifies how association with
the program is beneficial, and how your program expects to expand its audience
over time. Also be sure to court diverse sponsors including municipalities, elected
officials, service firms, local corporations, national foundations, local merchants, and
even individual citizens.
Conclusions
On the basis of the case comparison and the limited number of survey
results, we can draw some general conclusions about the research questions. Each
question was left intentionally broad at the outset, to allow for the potential
variation in programs suggested at by the literature. The qualitative nature of the
research methods also suggest speaking broadly about these specific cases, focusing
on commonalities and differences as indicative of the significant findings.
R1:
How are Open Streets programs organized, and operated? What goals
are associated with the programs?
Cooperation and collaboration between one or more public entities and non-profit
organizations appears to be central to the successful organization and operation of
an Open Streets program. In some cases the program is operated by a public entity
and other components outside the realm of local governments (fundraising, event
management, volunteers) are managed by a non-profit. In other cases public entities
are a support structure, providing resources, coordination, or other services to
make the programs (operated by a non-profit) possible. In all cases the goals were
very much public policy goals, including goals related to improving local economic
development, transportation, public health, and community well being.
R2:
What benefits do stakeholders see from the programs? How do these
benefits influence program structure, organization, and/or funding?
In all cases the associated public entities saw community benefits, including
increased activity and positive perceptions of their community. Sponsors,
particularly the large private sponsors who were critical to the operation of the
programs, displayed little interest in specifically influencing program organization
or operation, but did attach themselves to programs to accomplish a range of their
own goals. Most sponsors use the programs as community outreach efforts, with the
added benefit of encouraging particular outcomes associated with their firm’s
priorities (for example, two of the largest private sponsors both lead healthy living
campaigns). For the non-profit partners, program features and activities are used to
influence the outcomes associated with a program in ways that generally match
their organizational priorities (for example, an athletic association focuses on group
physical activities as a priority, a bike advocacy group on having large stretches of
open street to ride and walk along). The level of involvement of business partners in
planning appears to directly influence other merchants’ interest, and lead to
programs excluding outside vendors but coalescing around special offers, outdoor
seating, extended hours, and program promotion sponsored and facilitated by those
businesses. Programs targeting economic development goals appeared far more
successful at realizing those benefits when businesses were fully involved, not just
informed. Finally, location decisions play a part in realizing particular benefits, as an
effective economic development strategy requires the appropriate commercial
corridor; likewise, a physical-activity strategy requires a diversity of activities and
residential density.
R3:
How do Open Streets impact businesses along the route?
Across the limited number of business surveys collected, as well as the comments of
case program stakeholders, business impacts varied widely. Most programs
reported anecdotal increases in traffic and revenue at businesses, with some
programs resulting in the busiest business days of the year. At the same time,
programs are far more effective for retail and restaurant establishments than other
merchants, and merchants who invested the resources to actively engage program
participants appear to be more successful at seeing returns than do businesses that
operate as usual. It appears that program organization, promotion, and the level of
involvement on the part of businesses are all tied to the effectiveness of Open
Streets as an economic development program.
R4(a): What factors influence the frequency of recurrence of Open Streets
programs?
R4(b): Is there interest on the part of stakeholders to increase the frequency
of the programs?
For programs operating at an annual or semi-annual frequency, interest in
expanding frequency was high. Many reported an interest in holding programs
throughout the warm weather months. However, amongst those programs already
holding a monthly program (or a monthly program during the warm seasons), there
was less interest in expanding (though some interest remained). Despite the
different levels of enthusiasm for expanding program frequency, all respondents
noted a lack of resources as the biggest barrier to expansion, particularly the cash
and staff time needed to hold a program more frequently. They also noted the value
of having the program infrequently enough to make it a special attraction.
Development-oriented programs in particular require promotion and a level of
uniqueness to draw participants, and organizers reported program dilution as a
serious concern at a certain level of frequency. This dilution concern was less
common among programs focused primarily on fostering physical activity, where a
recurring program offers more meaningful impacts on behavior than a less frequent
special program.
This leads to one additional common sentiment expressed by many
participants when discussing outcome goals: Open Streets as part of a movement. It
was noted by participants that while their programs did have meaningful direct
impacts, that their primary vision for the program was that it would actually spur
more meaningful, ongoing changes in behavior and perspective. Some groups hoped
that their programs would open participants’ minds to biking and walking as means
of transportation, while others wanted to showcase the enjoyment of exercise and
the please of spending time in a previously undervalued neighborhood or
commercial corridor. These larger projects, of building stronger community and
changing perspectives as well as behaviors, are less tangible in their immediate
benefits, but may be instrumental parts of larger long-term policy strategies.
Although Open Streets programs offer significant opportunities, they are not
without their own challenges and obstacles. The scale of resources needed for an
effective and sustainable program is not to be underestimated, and effectively
engaging a community is a sizable and ongoing challenge. At the same time, as part
of a long-term strategy to effect meaningful change in a community, Open Streets
suggest a creative strategy that can be tailored to the unique, diverse needs of any
particular community. In this regard, they represent a creative, pragmatic tool to
both generate and employ collaboration to positive effect. By working within the
intersection of multiple broader issues (and at a more human level), they may be
more successful at combating feedback mechanisms and addressing these complex
challenges. Future efforts to assess how unique conditions have led programs to
take the form they have, as well as to more successfully quantify the impact on
outcomes (particularly business impacts), will offer additional opportunities to
better understand these programs. In the meantime, it appears that the growing
interest in such programs as policy tools is unlikely to decline.
References
Brown, C., Hawkins, J., Lahr, M. L., & Bodnar, M. (2012). The Economic Impacts of
Active Transportation in New Jersey.
Cattell, V., Dines, N., Gesler, W., & Curtis, S. (2008). Mingling, observing, and
lingering: everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and
social relations. Health & place, 14(3), 544–61.
Cervero, R., Sarmiento, O. L., Jacoby, E., Gomez, L. F., & Neiman, A. (2009). Influences
of Built Environments on Walking and Cycling: Lessons from Bogotá.
International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 3(4), 203–226.
Clifton, K. J., Muhs, C., Morrissey, S., Morrissey, T., Currans, K., & Ritter, C. (2013).
Examining Consumer Behavior and Travel Choices.
Crompton, J. L., Lee, S., & Shuster, T. J. (2001). A Guide for Undertaking Economic
Impact Studies: The Springfest Example. Journal of Travel Research, 40(August),
79–87.
Diaz del Castillo, A., Sarmiento, O. L., Reis, R. S., & Brownson, R. C. (2011).
Translating Evidence to Policy: Urban Interventions and Physical Activity
Promotion in Bogota, Colombia and Curitiba, Brazil. Translational Behavioral
Medicine, 1, 350–260.
Feehan, D. M., & Becker, C. J. (2011). Pedestrian streets, public spaces, and Business
Improvement Districts. Journal of Town & City Management, 2(3), 280–286.
Gursoy, D., Kim, K., & Uysal, M. (2004). Perceived impacts of festivals and special
events by organizers: an extension and validation. Tourism Management, 25(2),
171–181.
Handy, S. (1993). A Cycle of Dependence: Automobiles, Accessibility, and the Evolution
of the Transportation and Retail Hierarchies. University of California.
Hipp, A., & Eyler, A. (2012). Open and shut: the case for Open Streets in St. Louis. St.
Louis.
Hipp, J. A., Eyler, A. a, & Kuhlberg, J. a. (2012). Target Population Involvement in
Urban Ciclovías: A Preliminary Evaluation of St. Louis Open Streets. Journal of
urban health : bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 1196(68899).
Hyland, A., Cummings, K. M., & Nauenberg, E. (1999). Analysis of Taxable Sales
Receipts: Was New York City’s Smoke-Free Air Act Bad for Restaurant
Business? Journal of Public Health Management Practice, 5(1), 14–21.
Lal, R., & Matutes, C. (1994). Retail Pricing and Advertising Strategies. The Journal of
Business, 67(3), 345–370.
Leyden, K. M. (2003). Social capital and the built environment: the importance of
walkable neighborhoods. American journal of public health, 93(9), 1546–51.
Litman, T. A. (n.d.). Economic Value of Walkability. Transportation Research Record,
1828(03), 3–11.
Lugo, A. E. (2013). CicLAvia and human infrastructure in Los Angeles: ethnographic
experiments in equitable bike planning. Journal of Transport Geography.
Mason, M., Welch, S. B., Becker, A., Block, D. R., Gomez, L., Hernandez, A., & SuarezBalcazar, Y. (2011). Ciclovía in Chicago: a Strategy for Community Development
to Improve Public Health. Community Development, 42(2), 221–239.
Montes, F., Sarmiento, O. L., Zarama, R., Pratt, M., Wang, G., Jacoby, E., Schmid, T. L., et
al. (2012). Do health benefits outweigh the costs of mass recreational
programs? An economic analysis of four Ciclovía programs. Journal of urban
health: bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 89(1), 153–70.
PBOT. (2008). Sunday Parkways: Manual and Final Report December 2008. Portland.
Pucher, J., Dill, J., & Handy, S. (2010). Infrastructure, programs, and policies to
increase bicycling: an international review. Preventive medicine, 50, S106–125.
Rittel, H. J., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.
Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
Robertson, K. a. (1997). Downtown retail revitalization: a review of American
development strategies. Planning Perspectives, 12(4), 383–401.
Sarmiento, O., Torres, A., Jacoby, E., Pratt, M., Schmid, T. L., & Stierling, G. (2010). The
Ciclovía-Recreativa: A Mass-Recreational Program with Public Health Potential.
Journal of Physical Activity and Health, 7(Supplement 2), 163–180.
SFMTA. (2011). 2011 Season Highlights: Sunday Streets San Francisco.
Street Plans, & Alliance for Biking and Walking. (2012). The Open Streets Guide.
Torres, A., Sarmiento, O. L., Stauber, C., & Zarama, R. (2013). The Ciclovía and
Cicloruta programs: promising interventions to promote physical activity and
social capital in Bogotá, Colombia. American journal of public health, 103(2), 23–
30.
Wright, L., & Montezuma, R. (n.d.). Reclaiming Public Space: The Economic,
Environmental, and Social Impacts of Bogotá’s Transformation.
Zieff, S. G., Hipp, J. A., Eyler, A. a, & Kim, M.-S. (2013). Ciclovía initiatives: engaging
communities, partners, and policy makers along the route to success. Journal of
Public Health Management Practice, 19(3), S74–82.
Zieff, S. G., & Kim, M.-S. (2010). Reaching Targeted Participants in an Urban Ciclovía:
The Case of Sunday Streets San Francisco. Medicine & Science in Sports &
Exercise, 42(5(supplement 1)), 654.
Zieff, S. G., Wilson, J., Kim, M., Tierney, P., & Guedes, C. M. (2010). Meeting Physical
Activity Guidelines through Community-Based Events: The Case of Sunday
Streets. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 42(May), 654.