Picture this: the holidays are over, and your girth has expanded … again. But this year, you really mean to do something about it.
You’ve heard for years about the benefits of walking, so you buy yourself a pair of good shoes and one afternoon in early January, head out for a walk. Because there is no sidewalk in your neighborhood, you walk along the shoulder of the road, concentrating on your footing to avoid losing your balance on the uneven, gravel-littered surface. The air is fresh, and it’s a lovely day for a walk – until you reach the main arterial. Here, the road is the same quality, but the traffic is much heavier.
Determined to walk to your destination a half-mile away, you continue walking alongside cars traveling 45 to 50 miles an hour. Many drivers are courteous, slowing down and moving over to make room for you, but now and then someone comes dangerously close, and you are forced to step off the shoulder to avoid being clipped by a side-view mirror. The rush of the vehicles and the noise from their engines cancels out the mid-winter quiet. As minutes pass, you realize your heart is racing, not from exertion, but from fear. There is no barrier between you and the cars, no dedicated pathway on which to walk. “Maybe I shouldn’t be here at all,” you think, as you reach your goal and turn around to begin walking home. But this thought frustrates you further: “I live here,” you think, “I need to improve my health, and I want to take a walk – and I shouldn’t have to risk my life to do so.”
But you wonder: if there are no sidewalks or dedicated footpaths in your community, do people have the right to walk there? And if so, shouldn’t the streets be designed to ensure that pedestrians could safely share the roads with cars?
Whatever happened to sidewalks?
Since the 1950s, community planners in the U.S. have relied heavily on suburban expansion as a way to address population pressures and economic development. Road building has been a key component of this strategy, allowing for the creation of large-scale developments (like Shorewood and Driftwood Key in Hansville) located at a distance from urban centers, without expensive infrastructure costs like sewers, sidewalks and streetlights.
Historically, engineers have viewed connector roads linking these developments to commercial areas as a method to get people from their homes to workplaces in the fastest and most direct manner possible, and have paid little attention to the role of the streetscape in creating and maintaining a sense of community. For several decades, this development model seemed to make sense. But in recent years, a wealth of information has surfaced indicating that this car-centered, auto-dependent lifestyle is harming our physical health, our social connections and our economic well-being.
Health impacts: In several recent studies, researchers have noted that in communities where people are more likely to drive than walk, residents are generally less physically active, weigh more and have poorer overall health. (See “Measuring the Heath Effects of Sprawl: A National Analysis of Physical Activity, Obesity and Chronic Disease” at www.smartgrowthamerica.org/sprawlindex/sprawlexecsum.html.)
Because the original roads in many suburban areas did not take into account pedestrian and cyclist usage patterns, their designs are frequently inadequate to protect the safety of non-auto users. Commuting delays related to traffic congestion and distance from the urban core, contribute to “time famine,” increased stress, absenteeism, and for many people, a perceived decline in quality of life.
Social impacts: For youth, low-income residents and older adults who choose not to or are unable to drive, the lack of alternative transportation options and pedestrian access in a typical suburban community reduces their mobility, potentially limiting access to support systems, social services and employment opportunities. In addition, the typical two-lane suburban road, lined with houses set 20 to 30 feet back from the road, frequently cuts through the center of a neighborhood and actively discourages neighbors from interacting with each other.
Economic impacts: According to a study done in 1995, the total annual U.S. cost from motor vehicles was $ 725 billion. This figure includes costs related to air pollution, crashes, noise, time stuck in traffic, run-off into waterways, manufacturing, tire and battery pollution and tax subsidies. At the individual level, one Canadian researcher found that North American households in more auto-dependent communities spend $8,500, or 20 percent, of their household income on surface transportation; in communities with transportation alternatives readily available, the average household expenditure on surface transportation was less than $5,500 annually.
Making the streets safe for everyone
While cars are not likely to disappear from the suburbs, there are many ways to reduce automobile dependency and create more pedestrian (and bicycle) friendly communities within suburban areas. Some strategies include traffic-calming measures, alternative route development for pedestrians and cyclists, and street reclaiming.
Traffic-calming measures: Traffic-calming measures include installing speed bumps, stop signs and traffic circles in a given area, with the goal of slowing car traffic and enabling roads to accommodate a wider variety of users and activities.
Alternative route development: While creating entirely new pedestrian and/or cycling paths can be prohibitively expensive, parallel routes for pedestrians and cyclists can often be identified on side streets near major arterials. These routes are often much quieter and safer than main thoroughfares. With a minimal amount of improvement, they can easily accommodate foot and bicycle traffic, providing an alternative to driving.
Street reclaiming: Street reclaiming involves creating more attractive street environments and reducing vehicle traffic volumes through processes that increase the social, cultural, recreational and economic activity in a neighborhood. The goal of street reclaiming is to encourage people to think beyond the current use of their street as a thoroughfare and re-imagine it as a vital part of the community. For more information about this approach on changing the suburban streetscape, read “Street Reclaiming” by David Engwicht, or visit www.lesstraffic.com/Programs/SR/SR.htm.
Looking ahead: the 21st century suburb
Currently, our streets, just like our schools and workplaces, are undergoing a transition. Many factors are contributing to this: the baby boomers are beginning to retire, more employers are encouraging telecommuting in an effort to cut costs, and career-changers, the downsized and under-employed are all seeking new ways to work at, or closer, to home. The Growth Management Act, increased energy costs and dissatisfaction with the stress of commuting are also driving a trend toward pedestrian and bike-friendly communities where people can live and work. In such communities, people may still choose to drive, but they have other options and if they want to walk, they can do so safely and with confidence. In the 1950s, the car might have been king and speed the measure of a road’s success. But in the 21st century, a different set of circumstances and values are emerging in which the roads are a shared resource, their uses defined in part by residents who live along them, and people, not cars, are at the center of the community.
Urban sprawl and auto dependency defined
Urban, or landscape sprawl, is the process in which the spread of development across the landscape far outpaces population growth. Sprawl has four dimensions: a population widely dispersed in low-density development; rigidly separated homes, shops and workplaces; a network of roads marked by huge blocks and poor access; and a lack of well-defined, thriving activity centers, such as downtowns and town centers.
Most of features associated with sprawl – the lack of transportation choices, the uniformity of housing options (all single-family detached homes, for example) or the difficulty of walking – are a result of these four conditions. Auto dependent communities – defined as places with high levels of auto use, automobile-oriented, land-use policies and a lack of other travel and transportation alternatives – are an outcome of sprawl.
For more information on the subject of sprawl, auto-dependency, and developing safer, healthier, more walkable communities, visit Walkable Communities Inc. at www.walkable.org, the Center for Neighborhood Technology at www.travelmatters.org or the U.S. Surface Transportation Policy Project at www.bts.gov.
