To Walk or Not to Walk

download To Walk or Not to Walk

of 57

  • date post

  • Category


  • view

  • download


Embed Size (px)


Rick Hall analyzes the economic, health and environmental implications of creating pedestrian friendly, walkable neighborhoods. While recognizing the importance of walkability to the overall effort of healthy urban development, Mr. Hall highlights the "top ten" factors contributing to walkability. Topping this list is small block size. Mr. Hall's presentation reminds us of the importance of contextual connectivity, pedestrian accessibility as well as urban density and their contribution sustainable city design.

Transcript of To Walk or Not to Walk

  • 1. To Walk, or Not to Walk 2009 CNUProject for Transportation Reform (PTR) SummitPortland, OregonRichard A. Hall, P.E. HPE Hall Planning & Engineering, Inc.

2. To walk, or not to walk:that is the question: Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer Edwin Booth, Hamlet 1870 Wikipedia 3. the signs and arrows of outrageous proportion, 4. Or to take arms against a sea of trucks, And by opposing slow them? 5. To walk: To speed no more; 6. and by a stroll to say we end D. Burdin 7. the heart-ache of a thousand annual deaths that flesh is heir to; 8. To walk, to stroll the street:perchance to dream ... D. Burdin 9. life before 30 10. life after 30 11.

  • economy
    • development projects must sell
    • ReadGreyfields into Goldfields , CNU Lee Sobel
    • TND property values, 40 to 200% premium
  • health
    • CDC, obesity epidemic
    • astounding highway fatality rate 45k/year
    • safe walk to school
  • environment climate
    • its a crisis!
    • IPCCUN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    • urban design influences VMT, thus a valid solution
    • what we cant see can hurt us!1 pound per mile, out window.
  • etc.

Why Walk? 12. CO 2Emissions per Passenger mile 13. Drakes Well 150 years agoTitusville, PennsylvaniaEdwin L. Drake & George Bissell struck oil, at 69 feetAugust 27/1859 14. tale of two cities

  • drivable suburban
    • FAR = 0.2 0.4
    • vehicle mobility only by LOS - Americas default
    • extensive parking lots & wide roads
    • requires estimated 2/3 more energy than walkable urbanism
  • walkable urban
    • FAR = 0.8 40.0
    • total mobility;
      • walking, biking, transit, & vehicle use
    • urban form leads transportation design
    • often illegal today
  • fromOption of Urbanismby Chris Leinberger:

15. Andrew Georgiadis drivable suburban 16. walkable urban Andrew Georgiadis 17. It is not without hazardthat change comes 18. 19. 20. Top 10WalkabilityFactors

  • 10. Street Trees
  • 9. Lower Volumes
  • 8. Sidewalks
  • 7. Narrow Streets
  • 6. Interconnected Streets
  • 5.On Street Parking
  • 4.Lower Traffic Speeds
  • 3.Mixed Land Use
  • 2.Buildings Fronting St.
  • 1.Small Block Size!

21. 22. Gaines Corridor Workshop 23. Urban Transportation DesignQuestion of the Century

  • Q.Can you see DOT treating Gaines Street any differently than Capital Circle by the interstate?
  • A.No.

Arterial 24. 25. 26.

  • The first step in the (thoroughfare) design process is to define the function that the facility is to serve.AASHTO

27. functional classification

  • Arterials- Connecting major areas, long trips for mobility
  • Collectors- Connecting arterials, intermediate trips
  • Locals- Serving local access & connecting to collectors, short trips
  • Alltripsare byautoortruck ,nopedestrians in the criticalfunctional definition
  • Areas= rural or urbanized, only two major areas
  • Add a third major area type Compact Urban

28. larger problem

  • arterial roadway designs differ only for rural & urbanized areas.
  • Again, too little regard for walking & compact urbancontext

29. rural urbanized Update the functional classification systemareas 30. rural suburban compact urban Update the functional classification systemareas 31. rural suburban compact urban newcompacturban Update the functional classification systemareas 32.

  • simulate urbanized travel from past travel patterns
  • apply expensive travel models of capacity
  • size network per vehicle LOS to prevent failure
  • simulate urban form based on measured places
  • prioritize character and functionovercapacity
  • network is sized to yield smaller blocks

suburban compact urbanwhat is the difference? 33. arterial collector localproportion of service by functional classification general urban compact urban land access vehicle mobility land access mobility for all modes 34. trip length by functional classification arterial collector localgeneral urban compact urban vehiclesall modes 35.

  • continue valiant efforts to adjust suburban thoroughfares
  • apply complete streets planning & design
  • walking is first
  • set low speeds as 20 & 25
  • develop ped. scale design parameters
  • encourage multimodal travel via networks
  • decrease travel modeling and traffic impact analysis
  • reward good design behavior with higher funding levels

suburban compact urbanwhat is the effect? 36. 37. 38. The Transect A Classification System 39. 18 mph 18 mph 40. 41. 42. Roslyn, NY 43. 44. Roslyn, NY 45. Congestion or Mobility 46. 47. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 'tis a transformation devoutly to be wish'd.D. Burdin 57. To walk: To speed no more;