Walkability Improvements

Strategies to Make Walking Convenient, Safe and Pleasant

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

TDM Encyclopedia

Victoria Transport Policy Institute

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

About This Encyclopedia

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Updated March 8, 2007


This chapter describes various ways to improve walking conditions and encourage pedestrian transportation.

 

 

Description

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.

 

 

Wit and Humor

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.

 

 

How it is Implemented

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.

 

 

Travel Impacts

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 Split in Urban Areas (Pucher and Lefevre, 1996)

 

Car

Transit

Cycling

Walking

Other

Austria

39%

13%

9%

31%

8%

Canada

74%

14%

1%

10%

1%

Denmark

42%

14%

20%

21%

3%

France

54%

12%

4%

30%

0%

Germany

52%

11%

10%

27%

0%

Netherlands

44%

8%

27%

19%

1%

Sweden

36%

11%

10%

39%

4%

Switzerland

38%

20%

10%

29%

3%

UK

62%

14%

8%

12%

4%

USA

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 US survey found that 38% of respondents would like to walk to work, and 80% would like to walk more for exercise (STPP, 2003). The table below summarizes a Canadian public survey indicating high levels of interest in cycling and walking.

 

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.

 

 

Benefits And Costs

Nonmotorized transportation provides a number of benefits and costs.

 

Mobility Benefits (Evaluating Transportation Choice)

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.

 

TDM Benefits

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.

 

Safety and Health Benefits

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 Netherlands has a high level of nonmotorized transport. Pedestrian fatalities per billion km walked are less than a tenth as high as in the United States (Pucher and Dijkstra, 2000). Walking provides significant aerobic fitness Health and Fitness benefits. According to one major study, “Regular walking and cycling are the only realistic way that the population as a whole can get the daily half hour of moderate exercise which is the minimum level needed to keep reasonably fit.” (Physical Activity Task Force, 1995).

 

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).

 

Livability

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.

 

Recreation Benefits

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.

 

Economic Development

In several case studies, improving walking conditions in a community significantly increased retail sales and property values (LGC, 2001).

 

Costs

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.

 

 

Equity 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.