Since the first ancestor of homo sapiens first stood erect, humans have walked. Over time, new methods of transportation would revolution human transit: Horseback, chariots, stagecoaches, and automobiles have allowed humans a manner of transit other than walking; however, the last revolution in movement is perhaps the most sinister of all. The environmental impacts of automobiles has proved to be enormous. American cities have become significantly less dense over time, since the rise of the automobile, due to sprawling development.i For the purposes of this paper, however, the potentially harmful effects of the automobile on the pedestrian nature of cities will be addressed.
Pedestrian-friendly communities have traditionally been associated with dense, mixed-use neighborhoods. Prior to the automobile revolution, the majority of transit occurred by foot. In Roman towns, no person had to walk more than ten minutes to a commercial center.ii In America prior to the early 1900s, carriages and rides by horseback were enjoyed by the wealthy, but the rank and file citizens of any city relegated themselves to walking. As such, the automobile became cheaper and more available to the average American over time. The Federal Housing Administration (FHA) guaranteed bank loans to families mortgaging single-family homes; however, it didn't provide any guarantee for the renovation of existing housing stock. The provisions in FHA regulations encouraged the development of sprawling land-use patterns.iii
The Interstate Highway Act would exacerbate the problem by providing 41,000 miles of interstate. The refocusing of transportation from mass transit to the new interstate system made private commuting much more affordable for the populace.iv FHA regulations coupled with the thousands of miles of new roadway would work to encourage the segregation of all land uses. This segregation of land uses would work against pedestrianism in cities over time by necessitating a vehicle trip in nearly all instances. In suburbia, a typical household may generate thirteen vehicle trips per day on average.v Each stage in the evolution of the automobile has damaged the fabric of pedestrian spaces. The end result is three main reasons why pedestrian spaces aren't friendly in cities: 1) A lack of reason to walk, mainly because of a lack of nearby land uses worth walking to. 2) A lack of safety, whether real or perceived, in pedestrian spaces; and 3) lack of aesthetic reasons caused by ugly streetscapes.
As seen by the sprawling nature of modern-day cities, people have little ability to walk to a location of any appreciable distance. In fact, some factors that are more likely to increase walking or biking include living in a city center or in close proximity to a non-residential building, such as a grocery or drug store; and having good access to public transit.vi In fact, nothing creates walkable neighborhoods more than the notions of proximity and connectivity. Proximity refers to the mix and density of any given area. More compact places (i.e. more “dense”) support a wider variety of destinations near residential areas. Connectivity measures the street network and whether it provides direct routes, and whether there are safe connections for pedestrians and cyclists. vii Research suggests that streets laid out along a grid pattern are most conducive to pedestrian walkabilityviii by reducing trip distances (whether perceived or real), offering alternative pathways, and by slowing auto traffic.ix Studies have indicated that highly walkable communities generate twice as many walking-trips than less-walkable neighborhoods. Generally the extra walking-trips were for short errands or to work.x A six community study indicates that 56% of residents of condensed, traditional neighborhoods walked to nearby commercial areas, as compared to their suburban counterparts (33%).xi The data suggests that people won't walk unless they have a destination in close proximity. If research were conducted into the walking patterns of citizens of West Conway, it would most likely indicate that nobody walks in the neighborhoods for functional reasons, but rather walk for health reasons. Building traditional neighborhoods of mixed-uses encourages pedestrianism.
Yet another condition not conducive to pedestrian walkspaces involves the safety of a given street: streets that aren't or don't feel safe aren't effective walking areas. Because our nation has encouraged automobile usage by developing street patterns with high speeds and wide lanes to accommodate the maximum amount of cars possible at the fastest speeds possible, our principal and minor arterials have become our most dangerous streets. About 50% of the 51,989 pedestrian deaths occurred on these two types of roads between 1993 and 2004.xii The fatality rate of 20.1 per 100 million miles traveled makes walking the most dangerous mode of transit in America, especially when compared to the 1.3 per 100 million miles traveled by car or light truck.xiii Perhaps the biggest detriment to safe, walkable streets are the wide, long streets. The idea of streetscapes as outdoor rooms has suggested that visual enclosures slow down traffic, making the street more pedestrian friendlyxiv This idea works against a concept often implicit in traffic texts, that of “unimpeded flow:” the desire for increased traffic volumes by auto.xv Short blocks, narrower streets, and narrow curb radii all serve to slow down traffic, and promote a feeling of safety to nearby pedestrians. Furthermore, shorter blocks and narrow curb radii have the added bonus of offering a psychological benefit to pedestrians. More intersections means that pedestrians have more options as far as the route to take; they can gage their progress on a walk more easily, since pedestrians gage their walks on how many benchmarks they hit as they head to a destination. More intersections make it seem as if more progress is being made.xvi Yet, another component that makes the roads feel less safe is the lack of a buffer zone between streets and sidewalk. When people walk directly adjacent to a moving vehicle, there is the very real threat of being hit, but also an extreme perceived threat of collision (Dave Ward Drive in Conway being an example). On-street, or parallel, parking provides a buffer zone between a person on a sidewalk and a car on a street.xvii On-street parking also has the added benefit of calming traffic, since drivers perceive a danger to their cars by traveling too fast.1
These perceived safety issues border on human psychological/aesthetic concerns. People tend not to walk in areas that are boring, mainly because they feel exposed. Depending on the landscape architect, ratios of separation of space between buildings to building heights of 6:12 are encouraged.xviii When the streets are wider than this ratio, or the buildings are shorter, people feel exposed and vulnerable. Thus, people are more likely to frequent these locations by car. For this reason, many cities require building parking lots to be located mid-block or in the rear of the building, so that people may enjoy a street-scape where they are not exposed.xix Research has indicated that the ideal pedestrian space (sidewalk) is one where the buildings are near to the sidewalk (little or no setback), the buildings next to the sidewalk have items to capture the pedestrian's attention (in a downtown setting, open windows displaying the shops amenities), and a grid pattern of streets that allow the pedestrian to have a variety of choices about the direction in which he wants to travel.
Conway, AR has in the past made some poor decisions regarding pedestrian walkspaces. Oak Street has become a bastion of cars and parking lots, with no pedestrian spaces. A pedestrian feels exposed if they walk at the street-edge and vulnerable. If a pedestrian walks next to the building, they feel less inclined to cross the expanses of parking lot and street to get to a building on the other side. This necessitates a vehicle. Conway's Design Standards Pattern Book offers many opportunities to reverse some of the conventional methods and bad practices of dealing with walkable spaces. The Pattern Book seeks to eliminate the wide expanse of space that occurs when parking lots are put between the building and the street, thus making commercial developments more in tune with the 6:1 ratio.xx The Pattern Book also makes recommendations for providing aesthetic enhancements to pedestrian spaces to make them more interesting for the walker.xxi Perhaps the biggest attempt at pedestrian spaces, however, is Section 9 of the Pattern Book, which deals with mixed-use developments. By encouraging Mixed-Use Developments, in which residential units are located near commercial units (among other land use types). The elimination of the automobile trip for short errands and trips between adjacent neighborhoods is perhaps the most important method of encouraging pedestrianism.
Conway appears to be favoring pedestrianism by the recommendations put forth in the Pattern Book. While The most important thing Conway can do is plan ahead and not let future growth in Conway resemble Oak Street or West Conway; at least if we're to support pedestrianism. Future pedestrian orientation should be patterned like the downtown: Compact, safe and visually interesting.
1One study has indicated that a 5-10 mph reduction in traffic speeds increased property values of the surrounding residential neighborhoods by approximately 20% (Evaluating Traffic Calming Benefits, Costs and Equity Impacts, Todd Litman, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, 1999.)
2This 6:1 ratio is very close to the Golden Ratio that appears in nature quite frequently, perhaps suggesting its appeal to the human psyche.
iDuany, Andres and others, Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream, (North Point Press, New York, 2000) pg.85-97
iiCastagnoli, Ferdinando, Orthogonal Town Planning in Antiquity, (The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1971) pg. 122
iiiDuany, Suburban Nation, pgs.7-8
ivIbid. pg. 8
vIbid. pg. 20
viEwing, R. and Cervero, R. “Travel and the Built Environment: A Synthesis,” Transportation Research Record 1780, pg 87-114.
viiSaelens, B.E and others, “Environmental Correlates of Walking and Cycling,” Annals of Behavioral Medicine 25, no. 2 (2003): 80-91.
viiiFrank, L.D. and Engelke, P.O., “The Built Environment and Human Activity Patterns,” Journal of Planning Literature 16, No 2 (2001) 202-218.
ixGreenwald, M.J and Boarnet, M.G., “Built Environment as Determinant of Walking Behavior,” Transportation Research Record, 1780, pg. 33-42.
xEwing, “Travel and the Built Environment” pg. 87-114.
xiHandy, S.L, “Urban Form and Pedestrian Choices, Transportation Research Record 1552, pg 135-144.
xiiErnst, Michelle, Mean Streets 2004: How Far Have We Come? Surface Transportation Policy Project (2004); pg. 7-8
xiiiIbid. pg. 5
xivSmith, D.T. And Appleyard, D. “Improving the Residential Street Environment,” Federal Highway Administration, (GPO, Washington, DC, 1981) pgs. 123-130.
xvDuany, Suburban Nation, pg. 64
xvi Untermann, R.K., Accommodating the Pedestrian—Adapting Towns and Neighborhoods for Walking and Bicycling, (Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, 1984) p. 27
xviiDuany, Suburban Nation, pg. 71
xviiiIbid. pg. 79
xixIbid. pg. 16
xxDesign Standards Pattern Book, Zoning Ordinance, Article 1101 (2007); pg. 15
xxiIbid. pg. 20
