Walkable Cities for People

I recently read two books: one new, and one (and a half) classic, about the practices of making streets walkable and places friendly for people.

Growing up, I was lucky to take walkable streets and livable neighborhoods for granted. When I was 13, my family moved about a mile from a neighborhood of modest brick rowhouses within city limits to the first suburban neighborhood over the city boundary, with mostly single family homes.

The modest rowhouses had front steps next to a front porch which in the summer could be sheltered by a canvas awning. In the evening and on weekends, neighbors would stand out on front steps and chat. But when new neighbors moved next door with surly dispositions and noisy dogs, my parents moved a mile away to the suburbs.

The suburban neighborhood was an postwar suburb near a streetcar line with relatively narrow somewhat hilly streets. A library and convenience drugstore were a half mile away. My family belonged to a Jewish community where members lived within walking distance of a synagogue, and there were strong customs of walking social visits on the Sabbath and holidays. Walking was built into the culture.

The suburban neighborhood was greener and the houses were a little bigger. But I still missed the experience of people standing out on the front porch chitchatting on summer evening, and kids playing street hockey and stickball in the back alley.

So what is it that makes places walkable and livable?

Walkable City, a new book by designer and planner Jeff Speck describes the practices that can restore walkability in places that were designed or transformed to promote the elusive goal of the free flow of automobiles. Walkable City is an immensely quotable and highly readable summary of the benefits of walkability, and the ways to make places walkable.

The key insight of the book is that you don’t get walkability simply by adding features like wide sidewalks. Walkability isn’t just about the street, it’s about the place. To attract walkers, writes Speck, “A walk has to satisfy four main conditions: it must be useful, safe, comfortable and interesting. Each of these qualities is essential and none alone is sufficient.”

Useful. In order for people to walk, they need to be able to get to places they want to go – places like retail stores, schools, and parks. This means having useful destinations walking distance from each other. This requires fixing conventional mid-20th century zoning codes that create single use districts that make it impossible to walk from your house or work to a store or restaurant, because everyday activities are too far away from each other.

Interesting. In order for people to be willing to walk, the street needs to have interesting detail at eye level. How far people are willing to walk is not a factor of distance, but the appeal of the environment (see Steve Mouzon’s classic article on Walk Appeal. Blank walls and parking lots facing the street make for tedious and unsafe walking environments. The classic suburban-style design approach is to insulate the blank walls and parking lots with setbacks and landscaping, but it doesn’t work; the route is tedious, and people won’t walk far.

Safe and comfortable. Yes, streets also matter for walkability, and the book describes the elements of walkable street designs. Walkability is helped by short blocks and connections that let people get to where they’re going. Underutilized suburban areas can be retrofit to recut a street grid over time. (The book says more about block size than about connections that can open walking and biking shortcuts through cul de sacs and parking lots). Walkability also is helped by limiting excess curb cuts where incoming and outgoing cars conflict with pedestrians.

Safe walking is hindered by streets where cars go too fast because there are too many car lanes and the lanes are too wide. “Lane diets” can increase vehicle capacity by converting a 4-lane road to 2 vehicle lanes plus a center turn lane. Vehicle capacity goes up because the turn lane takes turning vehicles out of the way of through travellers; speeds go down, and crashes go down. Wide lane widths, intended to make driving safer, actually encourage speeding and reduces safety. Cities that converted one way streets back to 2-way have found that it slows cars down increases walking and economic vitality. The conversion to one-way streets in the 60s and 70s was intended to help the city by speeding car travel, but it turned out that surface freeways hurt downtowns and neighborhoods.

These changes can swing the balance back from prioritizing cars passing through, to better support for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers taking local trips. These changes can be contentious, since people have gotten used to treating local routes like freeways. But the impacts are severe, cutting neighborhoods from places to go, and making it unpleasant to shop or do ordinary activities outside of a car.

Streets are places, too.

One issue that Speck does not address robustly is the problem with the standard functional classification, which classifies streets based on their role in moving vehicles and local access, but does not take into account the land use around the street. Following standard street classifications, high-volume streets that run through areas with lots of houses, schools, or stores and serve many people taking short local trips, are designed as if the main goal was moving cars across town, regardless of the people who want to walk or bike for their local trips, or need to cross the street to get to their destination. The evolution of functional classification is a work in progress; there are some case studies and new work in the field, but not definitive new answers.

You can’t build your way out of congestion

Speck directs the harshest criticism in the book on traffic engineering practices that continue to encourage building more and more road capacity in an attempt to alleviate congestion. Research over time shows that building roads creates demand that fills the capacity; a 2004 meta-analysis shows that on average, a 10% increase in lane miles induces an immediate 4% increase in vehicle miles travelled, which climbs to 10% in a few years.

In addition to the “how” of creating walkable streets, the book provides a thorough but lively explanation of the reasons why: the economic benefits for walkable areas, the environmental and health benefits. The book also is a great primer for related practices that help create walkable communities; including effective transit and parking.

Where to start?

I agreed with most of the book, but had a few quibbles here and there. Speck rightly says that jurisdictions need to do “triage” and focus on improving walkability in some places before others. But his emphasis on “downtowns” I think misses some important dynamics.

The concept of a “downtown” implies a metropolitan region with a single center. The San Francisco Bay Area has multiple large and small cities arrayed around a large body of water. Many large metropolitan areas have multiple “centers.” Traditional pre-car big cities are composed of multiple neighborhoods that have local shopping and schools and businesses.

I am still learning and could change my mind about this, but I am not convinced that there is an ideal pattern of a central skyscraper metropolis surrounded by concentric circles decreasingly dense areas (following the new urbanist transect model). There are metropolitan areas in Europe in which multiple cities of various sizes are connected by superb transit service. The Washington DC metro area has created walkable towns along its transit corridors. Sprawling San Jose and the classically sprawled LA area are seeking to retrofit along boulevard corridors and neighborhood centers.

Triage by “focusing on success” leaves out substantial opportunities for retrofits in underutilized or failing areas. These places are promising not because they are successful, but because they are in such poor shape that jurisdictions are willing to change their practices to revitalize the area. Failed malls and other underutilized sprawl areas can add denser mixed use development and a street grid, with less argument from people who want to preserve things as they are.

The “focus on success” principle sounds disturbingly like helping the rich get richer. By contrast, some of the bus rapid transit proposals in the South Bay, similar to BRT programs worldwide, travel through low-income areas with a lot of people who don’t have cars, and who walk today on streets that are appallingly unsafe for pedestrians. Some of the pedestrian-friendly boulevards cited in Allan Jacobs’ classic boulevard book are not in wealthy areas. The advantages of walkability shouldn’t just be for the wealthy.

Finally, using a Complete Streets policy, cities can leverage their routine repaving projects to incorporate low-cost traffic calming improvements involving street restriping at low to no additional additional cost, and street crossing improvements that save lives at minimal additional cost. Many areas are low density now, and are going to remain so for the forseeable future, and serve people who prefer low density. Even there, modest incremental investments in street paint and arterial crossings can save lives over the next few decades.

Another critique is that the book could be somewhat be better on cycling. The section on cycling focuses too much on where to put bike lanes, and what sort of bike lanes, and not enough on how to overcome barriers to practical bike routes. Fundamentally, I think Speck underestimates the value of cycling in helping places recover from car-dependent development patterns. In moderately dense areas that have a lot of useful trip distances in the 1-5 mile range, cycling could easily account for a large share of trips for many people.

Today, Copenhagen with 37% mode share is an outlier; but with good infrastructure that could be much more common. In Palo Alto, 10% of residents use a bike as a primary commute mode *today*. If the ratio of commuters to regular bike users is similar to San Francisco (where 3.5% commute by bike and 17% take a bike trip weekly), this suggests that over 40% of Palo Altans regularly use a bike for transportation. Speck criticizes cycling advocacy as a “special interest” for a small minority, but the numbers are mainstream in some places in the US already.

“Walkable City” is a really solid book about how to create walkable, livable communities. If you want to get up to speed on the topic, read this book. If you know a lot, you’ll skim some, but still get something out of the book. And if you know people who *should* know this material, give this book as a gift.

Next up, a review of “Life Between Buildings” which sees walkability as only a small part of creating a thriving environment in streets and other public spaces.

2 thoughts on “Walkable Cities for People”

  1. Thanks for posting that interesting review on a topic that I support. I wholeheartedly share your interest in making cities walkable and less dependent on driving a car. Having grown up in east San Jose 40 years ago and later living in cities that have very good public transportation, I know first hand what you gain and what you give up when cities become more pedestrian friendly. Just as side note about my own feelings toward driving and giving you insight into my own biases, I have never enjoyed it and have always thought of it as what you must do in order to get around and get things done. The idea of feeling independent and free by driving a car was always blackened by the thought of the expense, the maintenance, and just the responsibility of being a good driver, not to mention getting in an accident with a bad driver.

    I’m now living just outside of Granada in a small town of about 15K people and thought it would be interesting to apply Speck’s criteria from your review. Of course, Granada and this town have been around longer than the USA has been a country, and I don’t intend to prescribe what works here for America. Obviously, the cultures are very different. Gas prices ($7.50/gal), and average Spanish purchasing power (1.1 gal per hour worked) have a huge impact on walking and driving, too. I suspect there are other criteria to making cities walkable and wanted to give that some thought.

    First let me preface my observations describing pedestrian traffic here. I was initially concerned that this village might be dead and devoid of people on the streets. To my surprise this was hardly the case, and since this is also a late night culture, people are out walking until 11.30 or midnight. The streets have a constant flow of cars, but you always see people walking, and all ages.

    Useful. Within just a few minutes walk from anywhere in town, you can accomplish most of life’s daily routine. There are schools, a place of worship, clothing stores, food stores, pharmacies, a medical clinic, tobacco stores, playgrounds, sports fields, and styling salons. There is a tendency for people who are mobile to shop at big box stores in Granada, so there is a campaign here and in other small cities to encourage people to shop local with incentives or contests. I suspect most locals don’t work in town and either drive or take the bus, which is a 35 minute ride to the city center.

    Interesting. This is such a subjective term, but I understand what is boring when walking. Buildings and population concentrations here are more dense than in much of the USA. Lots of open space in the valley surround Granada and its towns. Walking is interesting because there aren’t big boring stretches of walls, parking lots or setbacks, rather a patchwork of multi-family and single family houses, shops, bars, restaurants, plazas, fountains, street landscaping, etc.

    Safe and comfortable. Walking here and almost everywhere in Spain seems less stressful than what I’ve experienced on the west or east coast of the USA. Overall violent crime in the streets is much lower, although in bigger cities, pickpockets are a potential threat. Driving here is expensive, and they also have a very tough point system that is enforced. Drivers mostly yield the right of way to pedestrians where there are no lights. Spanish drivers are not wild drivers and don’t have a reputation for being crazy drivers. Pedestrians benefit from their restraint.
    Comfortable is where I would say in this town the sidewalks have their shortcoming. Sidewalks are quite narrow and barely enough room for two to pass shoulder to shoulder. And yet, this doesn’t seem to deter the locals. I guess they are used to it. And I know they expect to run into each other, so to speak. Which leads me to what I think is missing in terms of another important criterion.

    Social. Even in world cities like NYC, you can have a sense of community based on your walking routines, even if you take public transit, with driving much less so. And for some people this is a huge advantage of walking, running into familiar faces and maybe even a neighbor. If I never saw a familiar face ever, I would think I don’t really live there. The Spanish street is still a place where people hang out, small groups of friends, older retired guys just chatting, families out walking for a late dinner at 10, and even legal public drinking, el bottelón. Imagine that in the USA! I don’t think so.

    As Americans become more settled, leave the outer suburbs, and as gas prices continue to increase, and traffic continues to frustrate drivers, I can see an increase in the trend towards less dependency on cars and more walking. Adina, I think you lead an exemplary life in terms of using your bicycling and walking. In the meantime, I need to go walk over to the bank and pay my internet bill at the ATM which scans bills with barcodes for payment from my debit card.

  2. Thanks for this thoughtful reflection on the place that you live. What I really liked about this book and also Jan Gehl’s Life Between Buildings is that it helps you think about what aspects of places and streets make them walkable and livable. Interesting that the place is walkable despite the narrow sidewalks, because other things are good; lots of destinations, a street fabric, social space outdoors. I hope the local street life survives the big box stores, and that there is enough business from bars, restaurants and local conveniences to keep the streets lively.

    The neighborhood where I live is relatively dense but is under-developed in terms of small spaces where people can interact on the street; kids play in the street and adults walk and bike but it’s not really a social space.

    re: walking and biking – I think cars are very overused. Why do people use a car to drive a mile for an errand, it’s like like trying to cut dinner with a chainsaw – you destroy the experience you’re trying to have.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>