Policy Analysis of Open Streets Programs and Street Closures as Policy Tools

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.

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.

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.

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, in-kind 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 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.

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.