Walking and Transit Use Behavior in Walkable Urban Neighborhoods

Urban transportation is one of the most important target sectors for creating more sustainable and livable cities. Many US cities are making huge investments in public transit infrastructure in efforts to lower automobile use, encourage compact development, and curb greenhouse gas emissions. This paper explores how differences in the urban environment impact walking and transit use and how urban residents utilize walking and transit as modes of transportation. I use data from neighborhood mapping, observations, surveys, and interviews to explore these two questions. I find that walking is indeed the main mode of transportation within the urban core of Seattle. In contrast to what mainstream urban planning literature would suggest, residents living in the dense urban core of Seattle do not appear to be transit dependent and continue to drive at higher than expected rates. To help explain this, I explore how the ‘theory of urban fabrics’ applies to walkability and transit planning. This new emerging theory encourages planners to rediscover how to prioritize different modes of transportation within different parts of the city instead of current trends, which advocate for multimodal and shared streets throughout the city. Evidence indicates that the most walkable neighborhoods are those that have

[1]  Ann Forsyth What is a walkable place? The walkability debate in urban design , 2015 .

[2]  R. Cervero,et al.  TRAVEL DEMAND AND THE 3DS: DENSITY, DIVERSITY, AND DESIGN , 1997 .

[3]  Howard Rosenbaum,et al.  Effects of reading proficiency on embedded stem priming in primary school children , 2021 .

[4]  Reid Ewing,et al.  Travel and the Built Environment , 2010 .

[5]  J. Jacobs The Death and Life of Great American Cities , 1962 .

[6]  Jeffrey Kenworthy,et al.  Theory of urban fabrics: Planning the walking, transit/public transport and automobile/motor car cities for reduced car dependency , 2016 .

[7]  Janet Stephenson,et al.  Generation Y mobilities through the lens of energy cultures: a preliminary exploration of mobility cultures , 2014 .

[8]  A. Moudon,et al.  Physical Activity and Environment Research in the Health Field: Implications for Urban and Transportation Planning Practice and Research , 2004 .

[9]  R. Cervero,et al.  Transit villages for the 21st century , 1996 .

[10]  Mark R. Stevens,et al.  Does Compact Development Make People Drive Less? , 2017 .

[11]  A. Duany,et al.  Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream , 2000 .

[12]  Julie Campoli Made for Walking: Density and Neighborhood Form , 2012 .

[13]  J. Speck Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time , 2012 .

[14]  N. Owen,et al.  Destinations that matter: associations with walking for transport. , 2007, Health & place.

[15]  J. Gilderbloom Ten Commandments of urban regeneration: creating healthy, safe, affordable, sustainable, and just neighbourhoods , 2016 .

[16]  R. Ewing Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable? , 1997 .

[17]  W. Whyte City: Rediscovering the Center , 1988 .

[18]  H. Dittmar,et al.  The new transit town : best practices in transit-oriented development , 2004 .

[19]  K. Stanilov,et al.  Site Design and Pedestrian Travel , 1999 .

[20]  B. Saelens,et al.  Stepping towards causation: do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain physical activity, driving, and obesity? , 2007, Social science & medicine.

[21]  Sherry Ryan,et al.  Pedestrian Environments and Transit Ridership , 2009 .