AMERICAN.

COM
A Magazine of Ideas

Walk This Way

By Brent M. Eastwood Friday, April 13, 2007

Filed under: Lifestyle, Big Ideas

Homeowners want walkable neighborhoods and a sense of

community—and city planners are taking note.
Imagine how your week might look in a community with a range of transportation options.
Monday is sunny and pleasant; at lunchtime, you walk from work to a European-style open-air
café. On Wednesday, you leave the car at home and walk to the nearby light-rail stop, but
Thursday you need to take the kids to T-ball and stop by the grocery store after work, so you
drive the flex-fuel minivan. Friday you again commute by rail, then walk from work to a nearby
shopping center for dinner and a movie. Saturday morning you carry your bicycle onto the city
bus, which you ride to a lakeside park for a day of bike riding.

Now compare that ideal week to what an actual

week looks like for families in most American communities, where the car is the only way to get
anywhere, near or far. When it rains, you‟re stuck inside; whether you want to see a movie,
spend the day at the park, or just take your kids for ice cream, you first have to get in the car.
“Since the advent of the automobile, urban planners have eliminated [other] choices,” says
journalist Joel Garreau, who also heads a consulting group aimed at building more livable urban
areas. “We need to give people transportation choices and let the people decide what mode they
want.”

Too often, urban-planning debates degenerate into false dichotomies: it‟s either mass transit,
which puts commuters at the mercy of train delays and station locations, or the automobile,
which keeps people in charge of their own travel but leads to congestion, pollution, and social
atomization. Garreau‟s argument recognizes that the same individuals might prefer different
transportation modes at different times and for different reasons. Creating a “monoculture”
around any one transportation mode—the one thing that car-centric planners and mass transit
enthusiasts seem to agree on—is the real threat to commuter autonomy.

In fact, the problems with car-centric development go well beyond simply limiting people‟s
choices. Research in the American Journal of Public Health has shown that communities with a
variety of transportation options tend to be healthier, more economically efficient, more vibrant
and inclusive, and more politically active. Residents feel more of a sense of community.

“People need their homes to be in a location that has soul, identity, character, and community,”
Garreau says. “Unfortunately, these aspects of urban development are hard to quantify and are
not high on developers‟ lists.”

Kevin Leyden of West Virginia University‟s Institute for Public Affairs is one of the world‟s
leading experts on the benefits of walkable cities. Comparing responses to a 2001 survey in
Galway, Ireland, Leyden found that survey participants who lived in mixed-use, pedestrian-
oriented neighborhoods were “more likely to know their neighbors, participate politically, trust
others, and be socially engaged” than those who lived in more suburban, car-oriented areas.

Leyden has also identified the economic and health benefits of walkability. “Those who walk,
bike, or take public transportation to work help federal, state, and local governments save money
on road and street construction and maintenance,” he says. “People who use alternative modes of
transportation help reduce traffic, help reduce air pollution, and help increase energy
conservation. People who walk or bike are generally healthier physically and less obese.”

Jim Brainard, the mayor of Carmel, Indiana and a long-time supporter of walkable initiatives,
echoes Leyden‟s findings.

“After World War II,” he says, “suburbs and long driving commutes took off. People wanted
bigger and bigger lots in subdivisions. That meant building new infrastructure—water lines,
sewers, and thousands of miles of roads.

“That mentality is still alive and well. Everyone wants to abandon the existing infrastructure in
the cities and build new developments in the suburbs. This is not economically efficient. The
cost of this type of sprawl development is staggering and out of control. For example, the
reconstruction of an old county road to a three lane boulevard, with curbs, storm sewer,
sidewalks and bike paths, etc., given our land costs, is about four million dollars per mile.”
For ordinary homeowners and taxpayers, of course, the big-picture benefits of pedestrian-
friendly communities may be less obvious than the immediate differences in quality of life.

Melanie Sanchez lives and works in Alexandria, Virginia, a walkable city praised by New
Urbanist movement leader Andrés Duany as a rare American example of anti-sprawl. Sanchez
walks two blocks from home to the nonprofit organization where she works, sometimes leaving
her car parked for weeks at a time.

“I love being able to shop at locally owned stores. The owners know me by name,” says
Sanchez. “The big-box retailers are totally different and I don‟t feel as comfortable in them.”

Mike and Jessica Robinette live in Herndon, Virginia (Motto: “Enriching the Quality of Life and
Promoting a Sense of Community”), and work in nearby Reston. Whether at home or the office,
they have a short walk to restaurants and shopping, thanks to plentiful walking paths and mixed-
use developments. Although they currently rent a townhouse, they are looking to buy a home,
and transportation options are proving a major factor in their decision process.

“Although moving outside these communities may allow us to look for bigger and newer
townhomes,” Jessica Robinette says, “it also means a longer commute to work, a longer work
day, and added stress, which is not the direction we would like to take.”

George Branyan of the District of Columbia Department of Transportation (DDOT) has noticed
the growing trend of choosing walkable, mixed-use neighorhoods over sprawling suburbs.
“People are sick of driving their life away on long and often slow commutes and then getting
back in the car to go to dinner or pick up a movie,” Branyan says.

Branyan himself lives in Greenbelt, Maryland, a community developed in 1937 around the
concept of a “garden city,” with a central plaza surrounded by shops and entertainment.

“Conventional suburbia can sometimes be very isolating, especially for the elderly, teens, or new
moms. You might know your immediate neighbors, but no one else in the entire subdivision,” he
adds. In his community of Greenbelt, “you bump into friends and acquaintances from all parts of
town. The sense of connection to the community is palpable and very satisfying. You just don‟t
get that at the nearby strip mall.”

Branyan is in charge of a $250,000 plan to improve D.C.‟s pedestrian safety and accessibility, an
initiative that has the full support of Mayor Adrian Fenty. That project is one of many civic
initiatives worldwide—from Poundbury, Wales, to Paducah, Kentucky—to develop walkable,
vibrant cities. More and more people are demanding that their neighborhoods offer a full range
of transportation options: well-maintained roads and highways, convenient light-rail and bus
stops, bike and walking paths. The old problems of traffic congestion and pollution haven‟t gone
away, but increasingly homeowners seek communities that address those issues while
maintaining their charm and identity.

“It‟s curious that we now think of places with mixed-use zoning as „innovative,‟” Branyan
observes. “Housing over retail on the main street was the norm for literally hundreds of years
until we made them illegal with „progressive zoning.‟ Places that allow people to walk to the
store, the park, the school, to transit…that was the way all communities were built 60 years ago,
and now we call them „innovative.‟”

In Carmel, Mayor Brainard recently had the city purchase two dilapidated city blocks and then
sold the land to a developer for $600,000. The city incurred an initial loss, but quickly began
making money off the site once developers turned it into a walkable business-residential district.
In the development‟s first year alone, it yielded city tax revenues of $200,000.

It‟s no coincidence a big-city African-American Democratic mayor (Fenty) and a white,

suburban Republican mayor (Brainard) are both supporting walkable projects.

“The issues are bigger than politics,” Branyan says. “We all want a sense of community and a
safe place to live and raise our kids. We had these places years ago, but often they were
segregated, first legally and then de facto. In cities big and small we simply abandoned them.

“It‟s many things for many people,” he continues. “The left likes the environmental and energy
conservation aspects. The right likes the fiscal prudence and public-private partnerships for
economic development.”

Joel Garreau cautions that walkability alone is not a panacea for urban ills. Just as cars should
not be the only option, neither should any other single mode of transportation. The most effective
communities are those that provide for a multiplicity of lifestyles, preferences, and family
situations.

“Most of the U.S. has weather that can be extreme—heat, cold, snow, and rain. It‟s hard to ride a
bike or walk in those conditions. And let‟s face it, most areas simply don‟t have sidewalks or
bike paths,” Garreau says.

“I think developers who design subdivisions without sidewalks should be shot, but having said
that, most people still have to commute to work by car. That‟s just reality. We still need the
personal vehicle to go shopping—cars and minivans can haul cargo. That‟s why it‟s so important
to give people a choice in transportation, and not get stuck in the monoculture trap.”

Brent M. Eastwood is an Adjunct Professor at George Mason University School of Public Policy.
He is also the president of Personal Identity Solutions, a biometrics firm in northern Virginia.

Image credit: Paducah, KY by Rob Holland