Walkability Improvements
Strategies to Make Walking Convenient, Safe and Pleasant
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
TDM Encyclopedia
Victoria Transport Policy
Institute
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Updated
March 8, 2007
This chapter describes
various ways to improve walking conditions and encourage pedestrian
transportation.
Walkability reflects overall walking conditions in an area (Evaluating NMT). Walkability takes into account the quality of pedestrian facilities, roadway conditions, land use patterns, community support, security and comfort for walking. Walkability can be evaluated at various scales. At a site scale, walkability is affected by the quality of pathways, building accessways and related facilities. At a street or neighborhood level, it is affected by the existence of sidewalks and crosswalks, and roadway conditions (road widths, traffic volumes and speeds). At the community level it is also affected by land use Accessibility, such as the relative location of common destinations and the quality of connections between them.
There are many specific ways to improve walkability (ADONIS, 1998; Litman, et al., 2000). Major categories include:
·
Improved sidewalks, crosswalks and paths.
·
Improved Nonmotorized Facility Management and
Maintenance, including reducing conflicts between users and maintaining
cleanliness.
·
Universal Design (transportation systems that
accommodate special needs, including people using wheelchairs, walkers,
strollers and hand carts).
·
Provide pedestrian countdown signals, which indicate how many seconds
are left in the walk phase (Markowitz, et al, 2006).
·
Provide covered walkways, loading and waiting areas, with shade from
hot sun and protection from rain.
·
Improve pedestrian Accessibility by creating Location-Efficient, Clustered,
mixed land use patterns, with good road and path Connectivity,
and pedestrian-oriented buildings, reflecting New Urbanist
design principles.
·
Transportation Access Guides, which provide
concise information for accessing a destination by walking, cycling and public
transit, and facilities and services for people with special mobility needs.
·
Concentrate more activities into walkable Commercial
Centers.
·
Street furniture and pedestrian facilities (e.g., benches,
pedestrian-oriented street light, public washrooms, etc.).
·
Design in a pedestrian scale, with shorter blocks, narrower streets,
pedestrian-oriented buildings and street furniture.
·
Create more Livable communities and more
pedestrian-oriented Streetscapes.
·
Traffic Calming, Speed
Reductions, Streetscape Improvements and Vehicle Restrictions.
·
Road Space Reallocation to increase the portion
of public rights-of-way devoted to sidewalks.
·
Active Transportation Encouragement programs.
·
Address Pedestrian Security Concerns.
|
Involvement
of pedestrians in traffic is a major consideration in highway planning and
design. Pedestrians are a part of every roadway environment, and attention
must be paid to their presence in rural as well as urban areas. The urban
pedestrian, being far more prevalent, more often influences roadway design
features than the rural pedestrian does. Because of the demands of vehicular
traffic in congested urban areas, it is often extremely difficult to make
adequate provisions for pedestrians. Yet this must be done, because
pedestrians are the lifeblood of our urban areas, especially in the downtown
and other retail areas. In general, the most successful shopping sections are
those that provide the most comfort and pleasure for pedestrians. Policy
On Geometric Design Of Highways And Streets – American Association of State Highway
and Transportation Officials (www.aashto.org),
1994. |
These modes provide both recreation (they are an end in themselves) and transportation (they provide access to goods and activities), although users may consider a particular trip to serve both (users choose a nonmotorized mode, although it takes longer, because they enjoy the activity).
Pedestrian facilities (sidewalks and paths) must accommodate many uses and types of users. People walk alone, in groups, walk pets, push strollers and carts, run, skate, stop to gaze and talk, play and eat on sidewalks and paths. Many paths also accommodate scooters and bicycles. Different uses and users require different amounts of space. Although a person walking alone may only need 18-24 inches of width, other users and uses require more space. A couple walking side-by-side, a person in a wheelchair or pushing a cart, a runner or bicyclist all require more space. In addition, sidewalks and paths contain various types of “furniture” such as signposts, parking meters, mail boxes, garbage cans and sometimes café seating. When people pass each other or an object on the path, they require adequate shy distance. Although a sidewalk or path may have a generous nominal width, its functional width may be much smaller due to various types of obstacles within its right-of-way. A sidewalk or path should be designed and Managed to accommodate various uses and users, taking into account actual uses and conditions.
|
Defining “Walkable Community” By Dan Burden of Walkable
Communities (www.walkable.org). A “walkable community” is
designed for people, to human scale, emphasizing people over cars, promoting
safe, secure, balanced, mixed, vibrant, successful, healthful, enjoyable and
comfortable walking, bicycling and human association. It is a community that
returns rights to people, looks out especially for children, seniors and
people with disabilities and takes aggressive action to reduce the negative
impacts of sixty-plus years of auto-centric design and uncivil driving
practices. It is also a community that emphasizes economic recovery of
central neighborhoods, promotes the concepts of recovering and transforming
suburban sprawl into meaningful villages, and especially takes ownership and
action to protect and preserving open space. A walkable community, like
a livable community, smart growth community, or sustainable community, makes
a neighborhood, hamlet, village, town, city or metropolis into a place where
many people walk, ride bicycles and use transit, and where anyone who drives
a car moderates their behavior in a way where they take nothing from the
rights of those who wish to stay healthy and active by taking part in
activities outside the car. A walkable community is
one that is old, historic, well worn, restored sensibly and worthy of
protection. A walkable community is one that is compact, new, fresh,
invigorating and teaming with people enjoying their streets, parks, plazas,
buildings and other physical space. |
Walkability improvements are usually implemented by local governments, sometimes with funding and technical support of regional or state/provincial transportation agencies. It usually begins with Nonmotorized Planning to identify problems and prioritize projects (Litman, et al., 2000). Implementation may require special funds, either shifting funds within existing transportation, a new budget allocation, or grants.
Some Walkability Improvements involve land use, street design and community livability features that create communities that are more attractive for walking, but are not necessarily considered pedestrian improvements. For example, improved roadway Connectivity benefits motorists and cyclists as well as pedestrians.
Walkability improvements can substitute directly for automobile trips. Walking improvements also support Public Transit and Ridesharing. A relatively short nonmotorized trip often substitutes for a longer car trip. For example, a shopper might choose between walking to a small local store, and driving a longer distance to shop at a supermarket. Walkability improvements are critical to Smart Growth, New Urbanism, and Transit Oriented Development, which can result in significant reductions in per-capita motor vehicle trips (Land Use Impacts on Transportation).
Loukopoulos and Gärling (2005)
find that on average people will drive rather than walk for a distance over
1,236 meters, with higher walking thresholds for women, and people who
frequently walk, and lower values for more difficult walking conditions and
people who frequently drive. The authors conclude that improving walking
conditions and marketing campaigns can decrease the frequency of short
automobile trips.
Communities that improve nonmotorized travel conditions often experience significant increases in nonmotorized travel and related reductions in vehicle travel (PBQD, 2000). One study found that residents in a pedestrian friendly community walked, bicycled, or rode transit for 49% of work trips and 15% of their non-work trips, 18- and 11-percentage points more than residents of a comparable automobile oriented community (Cervero and Radisch, 1995). Another study found that walking is three times more common in a community with pedestrian friendly streets than in otherwise comparable communities that are less conducive to foot travel (Moudon, et al, 1996).
International studies find significant differences in non-motorized travel patterns, as illustrated in the table below. High levels of non-motorized travel in such geographically diverse communities, and lower levels in otherwise similar areas, indicate that transport policies and community attitudes are more important than geography or climate in determining nonmotorized travel.
Table 1 Mode
|
|
Car |
Transit |
Cycling |
Walking |
Other |
|
|
39% |
13% |
9% |
31% |
8% |
|
|
74% |
14% |
1% |
10% |
1% |
|
|
42% |
14% |
20% |
21% |
3% |
|
|
54% |
12% |
4% |
30% |
0% |
|
|
52% |
11% |
10% |
27% |
0% |
|
|
44% |
8% |
27% |
19% |
1% |
|
|
36% |
11% |
10% |
39% |
4% |
|
|
38% |
20% |
10% |
29% |
3% |
|
|
62% |
14% |
8% |
12% |
4% |
|
|
84% |
3% |
1% |
9% |
2% |
The amount of walking and cycling varies significantly from one city to another.
Many communities have significant latent demand for
pedestrian travel, that is, people would walk more frequently if they had
suitable facilities and resources. One
Table 2 Active
Transportation Survey Findings
(Environics, 1998)
|
|
Cycle |
Walk |
|
Currently use this mode for leisure and recreation. |
48% |
85% |
|
Currently use this mode for transportation. |
24% |
58% |
|
Would like to use this mode more frequently. |
66% |
80% |
|
Would cycle to work if there “were a dedicated bike lane which would take me to my workplace in less than 30 minutes at a comfortable pace.” |
70% |
NA |
|
Support for additional government spending on bicycling facilities. |
82% |
NA |
This survey indicates a high level of interest in cycling and walking.
Some TDM studies conclude that walking improvements have little impact on overall vehicle travel (Comsis, 1993; Apogee, 1994), because they only consider commute trips that can shift directly to nonmotorized modes, with no changes in destinations or land use, and no recognition that walkability improvements are important for increasing Transit and Rideshare travel. Potential travel impacts are much greater if Pedestrian Improvements are part of Smart Growth development practices that increase Accessibility, for example, by locating schools and shops within residential neighborhoods. Walkability improvements around worksites can increase transit and rideshare use, because without these employees may feel the need to have a car to run errands during breaks.
Travel surveys and traffic counts usually under-record nonmotorized trips, because they ignore or undercount short trips, non-work travel, travel by children, recreational travel, and nonmotorized links (BTS, 2000). For example, trips that are classified as “auto” or “transit” trips are often actually “walk-auto-walk,” or “walk-bus-walk” trips, yet the walking component is not usually counted, even if it takes place on a roadway. One study found that the actual number of nonmotorized trips is six times greater than what conventional surveys indicate (Rietveld, 2000). In 2000, the Southern California Metropolitan Transportation Authority increased the portion of nonmotorized travel in their models from about 2% of regional trips (based on conventional travel surveys) up to about 10% (based on more comprehensive travel data from the 1995 National Personal Transportation Survey).
In recent years several evaluation tools have been developed to predict demand for pedestrian travel, evaluate walking conditions and predict the effects of walkability improvements (Evaluating Nonmotorized Transport).
Table 3 Travel Impact Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Reduces total traffic. |
2 |
|
|
Reduces peak period
traffic. |
2 |
|
|
Shifts peak to off-peak
periods. |
0 |
|
|
Shifts automobile travel to
alternative modes. |
3 |
|
|
Improves access, reduces
the need for travel. |
1 |
Supports higher-density,
mixed land use. |
|
Increased ridesharing. |
0 |
|
|
Increased public transit. |
2 |
Pedestrian access affects
public transit use. |
|
Increased cycling. |
3 |
|
|
Increased walking. |
3 |
|
|
Increased Telework. |
0 |
|
|
Reduced freight traffic. |
0 |
|
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Nonmotorized transportation provides a number of benefits and costs.
Improved
nonmotorized transport conditions increase travel choice and mobility, which
particularly benefits non-drivers. Walking tends to be one of the most Affordable transportation modes. People who are
transportation disadvantaged often rely heavily on nonmotorized transportation,
for trips made entirely by walking, and to access transit. Pedestrian
transportation provides Basic Mobility, particularly Universal Design improvements.
Shifts
from driving to walking can reduce congestion, road and parking facility costs,
consumer costs, and pollution emissions (Litman, 1999). It can be particularly
effective at reducing many costs because it most often substitutes for short
automobile trips in higher density urban areas where the per-mile costs of
driving tend to be highest. Nonmotorized transportation supports other
alternative modes (public transit and ridesharing), and Smart
Growth land use objectives, including higher density, mixed-use development
to increase access, and reduce per capita pavement.
Although
nonmotorized modes have relatively high per mile casualty rate, this is offset
by reduced risk to other road users, and by the fact that pedestrians and
cyclists tend to travel less overall than motorists. International research
suggests that shifts to nonmotorized transport result in overall increases in Road Safety. For example, the
There
is some debate over the safety benefits of some pedestrian improvement
strategies, particularly marked crosswalks (Zegeer, et al, 2004). In response,
some communities are taking measures to insure that such facilities are
designed to maximize safety (Hefferan and Lagerwey, 2004).
Streets
that are attractive, safe and suitable for walking are a key factor in
community livability. Pedestrian-friendly streets create opportunities for
people to meet and interact, helping to create community networks.
Many
people enjoy walking and the healthy exercise it provides. Walking is one of
the most common forms of physical recreation. Some people argue that
transportation funding should not be spent on recreational walking facilities,
yet a significant portion of motor vehicle travel is for recreation. It makes
no sense to refuse funding for a path, yet fund roadway capacity so motorists
can drive to a healthclub where they walk a treadmill or pedal a stationary
bike. This suggests that both transportation and recreational funding can be
devoted to nonmotorized improvements.
In
several case studies, improving walking conditions in a community significantly
increased retail sales and property values (LGC, 2001).
Costs
are generally associated with program expenses and facility improvements.
Table 4 Benefit Summary
|
Objective |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Congestion Reduction |
2 |
Reduces automobile use. |
|
Road & Parking Savings |
3 |
Reduces automobile use. |
|
Consumer Savings |
3 |
Provides affordable
mobility. |
|
Transport Choice |
3 |
Increases travel choices. |
|
Road Safety |
3 |
Reduces automobile use.
Also provides health benefits. |
|
Environmental Impacts |
3 |
Reduces automobile use,
particularly high-polluting short trips. |
|
Land Use Impacts |
3 |
Supports higher-density
development. |
|
Community Livability |
3 |
Reduces motor vehicle
traffic and increases local access. |
Rating from 3 (very beneficial) to –3 (very harmful). A 0 indicates no impact or mixed impacts.
Since nearly everybody walks, walkability improvements can benefit nearly everybody, although some people benefit more than others from a particular policy or project. Walkability improvements in general, and Universal Design improvements in particular, are particularly important for providing Basic Access and insuring opportunity to who are transportation disadvantaged. Grayling, et al (2001) show that pedestrian safety improvements are particularly beneficial to economically and socially disadvantaged communities.
Improving walking conditions often requires public resources (money and land devoted to sidewalks and paths), but these costs are usually less than the public costs of an automobile trip. Litman (1998) describes how people who drive less than average overpay their share of local transportation expenditures, since their local taxes fund roadway expenses that are primarily needed for the sake of automobile traffic, so increased funding for nonmotorized transportation is often justified for the sake of horizontal equity. Lower-income and transportation disadvantaged people often rely heavily on nonmotorized transportation, and so benefit significantly by nonmotorized improvements. Pedestrian transportation is often critical for providing Basic Mobility.
Table 5 Equity Summary
|
Criteria |
Rating |
Comments |
|
Treats everybody equally. |