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

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 non-profit 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.

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.

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.

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).

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).

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:

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:

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, community-level 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.

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.

R4(b): Is there interest on the part of stakeholders to increase the frequency of the programs?

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.