Walking Towns: Universities, Military Bases & Pre-Auto Urban Areas

In one of the recent threads, I asked for good local statistical sources and got a few gems, including the Bikes at Work census data commute-to-work mash-up by zipcode. So I ran a quick search on the highest walk to work locations in the US for towns over 1000 population. The results were surprising to me in the lack of diversity:


Location POP % Walk to work
Naval Academy, Maryland 4264 82.99%
Houghton, New York 1730 67.84%
Alfred village, New York 3926 60.98%
West Point, New York 7138 60.25%
Air Force Academy, Colorado 7536 59.63%
Parris Island, South Carolina 4841 58.45%
Lackland AFB CDP, Texas 7132 58.09%
New Square village, New York 4707 57.28%
Hamilton village, New York 3510 55.56%
Avalon city, California 3181 52.79%

They are almost all locations that are centered around an institution, like a university or military academy where many people are housed very close to their classes or jobs and the concentration of people and buildings conspires to reduce the amount of spaces that could be used for roads and parking of automobiles.


So I raised the threshold to at least 20,000 residents.


Location POP % Walk to work
Ithaca city, New York 29006 43.33%
Athens city, Ohio 21192 42.39%
State College, Pennsylvania 38420 41.8%
North Chicago, Illinois 36001 29.06%
Oxford city, Ohio 22087 28.86%
Fort Bragg, North Carolina 29246 26.13%
Cambridge, Massachusetts 101355 25.76%
Fort Hood, Texas 33595 23.87%
College Park, Maryland 24590 23.28%
Pullman city, Washington 24740 22.53%

And again, with few exceptions, we find the pattern of high walking rates and major institutions of higher learning, military bases and areas of mixed use development.

So I then raised the threshold again to over 250,000 residents:


Location POP % Walk to work
Boston, Massachusetts 589141 13.36%
Washington, DC 572059 12.27%
New York City, New York 8008278 10.72%
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 334563 10.02%
San Francisco, California 776733 9.82%
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 1517550 9.22%
Newark, New Jersey 273546 8.03%
Seattle, Washington 563375 7.72%
Baltimore, Maryland 651154 7.28%
Minneapolis, Minnesota 382452 6.85%

While all of these cities have colleges and universities and other major institutions, they are part of a very large mix and cannot alone account for why these cities are on the list. Even controlling for population density does not account for this distribution. It's clear that these are cities that grew to sizable populations before the automobile, which may explain why these major cities are on this list instead of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston and Dallas.

Surprising are two cities you might have expected to make this list: Chicago and Portland. They aren't that far off, but while both cities are getting a lot of credit for their green initiatives they don't seem to encourage walking to work as much as these cities above.

An even better question to assess walkability than % that walk to work would be the % that walk to the grocery store or pharmacy. We looked at Walkscore as a metric before and found it had flaws, but was generally useful.

From this very high level look at this census data and Walkscore, it would seem that there are two major factors that influence the walkability of a city or town.

1. Major Institutions: Colleges, Military Bases where people live in dorms/barracks close to their employment/education as well as dining/entertainment/social destinations
2. Pre-Auto City/Village Design: Places created before/without the need for automobiles with close mixed uses of residential/commercial/workplace/dining/grocery/education/entertainment.

The keys to both seems to be co-location of people's housing with the various destinations that they need/desire.

But there is a choice here that seems like one worth considering in greater depth. If we want to create a post-carbon society, creating more walkable communities seems like a major priority. But what kind of walking towns do we want?

Susan Mack
Not only did I walk to work....but last week I was able to walk to the NYC bus station!
This University town does NOT encourage enough students to leave their cars at home....if they did, the buses would be more often, and then parking downtown wouldn't be such a problem.
What do those other University towns do to encourage walking? Ideas?

In Seattle, students at the University of Washington can get what is called the U-Pass. For $35 a quarter we have unlimited use of all King Country Metro transportation, which primarily means city busses. But the U-Pass can also get us on the Sound Transit to Everett or Tacoma. It is a fantastic deal if you use the bus daily, but my commute is about 15 minutes walking.

I live in Wisconsin and bicycle about 4,000 miles a year over a 9 to 10 month period when the roads are free of ice. I’m definitely a senior citizen and have my share of physical aliments to complain about. However, I believe the invention of the bicycle (and modern hi-tech tricycles) is one of man’s finest achievements and I find cycling to be one of my greatest pleasures in life. Too bad the automobile spoiled this for most people. The bicycle and its “human powered vehicle” variants can easily address many of mankind’s transportation and health issues. Cold, wind, rain, heat, etc. are not the real impediments to using a bicycle. Here in the US (and many other industrialized countries) we simply have succumbed to the “Car Culture” and have embraced it with more insanity than the worst drug addicts.

I live in a “nice” community that could easily do away with 90 percent of the school buses, 70 percent of the parking lots, and 40 percent of the roadways. But, this is not going to happen any time soon. In fact, most law makers here constantly advocate more pavement, more automobile accommodation, and do not want to hear about bicycles under any circumstance – although the subject is sometimes forced upon them. As long as government leadership does not promote cycling as a serious means of transportation, the average citizen is not going to risk their lives or the lives of their children trying to compete with motorized folks who are sometimes even hostile to cyclists who infringe upon “their” roads and inconvenience them.

Mass insanity is a fact of life in our current culture and it will take some pretty extreme events to jar that mindset into considering real alternatives.

Preach on, brother!

If anyone here is in the San Francisco Bay area any time, I highly recommend the rides and activities of the Western Wheelers bicycle club. Great people, and a lot of them are OLD and still outride most folks.

It will indeed take extreme events to get people onto bikes, something like ..... peak oil.

I think that most of us recall having walked a lot (or rode a bike a lot) during our college days.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned but that does make a difference:

Walking is fine when the weather is good. But what if you are halfway home and it starts raining?

The typical college campus will have lots of public buildings in which one can take temporary refuge from a storm. The larger ones will also have bus systems. Walking becomes a much more attractive proposition if one knows that one can hop on the bus along the way if the weather turns bad, or if one sprains an ankle, etc.

(I am also old enough to remember when hitch-hiking was very common amongst college-aged people, and even the entire population. Where hitch-hiking is commonplace, it can partially substitute for a bus service. Unfortunately, the contemporary US is not the sort of society where people feel safe either offering rides to or accepting rides from strangers. Too bad.)

Thus, two keys to creating walkable areas might be to: 1) Provide places along walkways and bike paths where people can temporarilly shelter from bad weather, to the extent that such places do not already exist; and 2) Find some way to create a hitch-hiking-friendly community, or else serve communities with a good bus service.

WNC - I agree about both the increase in public spaces/buildings and safe hitchhiking communities.

Public spaces/buildings: The worst place to get caught out in the rain is a single-use zone solely for the purposes of a private property owner. Some of this is something that can be done by simply creating more mixed land uses. My favorite place to pop-in during a storm is a local coffee shop, bar or pizza parlor. Libraries and public spaces inside large building lobbies also work and don't cost anything. The other way would be to create shared places on the edges of public/private property - like little sheds on the side of the road with water, air for bike tires, whatever the private property owner or local municipality could easily provide cheaply.

Hitch-hiking community: Some of this could just be accomplished through greater familiarity with your neighbors and it could also be done in other ways through technology. Many ride-share web sites allow members to build their credibility and reliability by getting ratings from prior experiences similar to e-bay. I could imagine a service that allows people to request a pick-up through their cell phone and have a trustworthiness rating sent to a potential ride going in their direction.

Balconies overhanging the sidewalk work quite well. Trees are also useful but not as good.

Best Hopes for Rainy New Orleans,

Alan

Very nice point Alan. It's even better when there are interesting people to look at on the balconies...

That's a good way to walk into a bus stop sign. Been there done that.

Robert a Tucson

I haven't escaped from reality. I have a daypass.

Trees are especially not as good to be under during electrical storms. Any type of overhang or recessed entry will work -- if the public is allowed to use it.

WNC Observer,

I rode my bike 4 and a half miles each way to college in the late 70s/early 80s. In the central San Joaquin Valley in the winter it can be very cold, like in the high 30s / low 40s. But I would prepare myself by wearing a windbreaker jacket and have a change of shirts in my backpack. I did not have a membership to the gym, so I just used wet paper towels in a men's room to wash off presperation and then dry off and be all set for classes. I prided myself on not using a car those days. Occasionally I would use the bus, like when it rained. I would have to transfer once to a another bus line on the route. No big deal. But I preferred biking since it was much faster than the bus service.

I wonder about the elderly people or handicapped people. They need to plan on being near good mass transit.

Currently I live in Baltimore near a large shopping mall, an outdoor mall, and a bunch of restaurants and such. But I drive 14 miles to work. This is not a long term situation and I plan on being back in Phoenix by the beginning of next Fall. I don't mind the commutes because I'm renting. I think I can change my lifestyle very easily when the $150 per barrel of oil drives us all to crisis mode. I've been preparing for rough economic times since 2001.

Phoenix is building light rail from downtown to Mesa. I anticipate living in the area during the crisis, perhaps within 2 miles of a light rail station. There are a lot of jobs in my industry in Phoenix and they don't rely on cheap oil. I am prepared to use mass transit again for another 15 years before the nuclear energy and solar energy solution starts to kick in. Electric cars will be very popular in a few years. In fact my other scenario is to buy an electric car and continue my commuting habits when I move back to Phoenix. This keeps sparking my interest: http://www.teslamotors.com/

With years of bike commuting and walking experience in eastern Ontario, I can vouch for the usefulness of temporary shelter. Rainy days are predictable, and they can be managed. It's passing rainclouds that can wreck a trip. Overpasses, bus shelters, churches, doorways, coffee shops, etc., these can all help prevent the dreaded soakers.

But what if you are halfway home and it starts raining?

I am wondering how "I use an umbrella" can not be an obvious response. I guess you just never heard of them.

Is there some subtle trap I am falling into?

My thoughts too. It's not too hard to carry one, although I have had to buy one at work once or twice. I like walking in the rain - it's the really hot, humid days that are the worst. I just walk a lot slower on those days. Trees or shade from buildings is good on those days.

Umbrellas are great for a mild sprinkle. In a real downpour, they are really only good for a quick dash from one doorway to the next, and even then you are still likely to get soaked below the waist. Not to mention that carrying a metal pole in the air whilst you are wet and thus conductive is not the wisest of ideas during an electrical storm.

Most downpours are relatively short term affairs, lasting 10-20 minutes or so. Most people will wait them out in a doorway or other shelter if they possibly can, then deploy their umbrellas once the rain has tapered off to a mild drizzle.

"worried about being struck by lightning"

Oh come on, that is a really lame excuse!

If we are using this sort of excuse ("I'm worried about getting a bit wet occasionally") what chance is there of getting car drivers out of their Faraday cages?

In a dense urban environment, with lightning rods common, the risk at street level is minimal. Less than running to the barn.

Alan

Build COVERED sidewalks with some of the money we save not building roads and with some of the road material we tear up to get farmland back. I learned that from the Ray Swangkee city-states-of-stone idea. In a society that travels mostly by walking, this would be worth it to protect from the heat of the sun, the annoyance of the rain, and the danger of lightning. Until then, have a plastic poncho in your backpack

Overhanging balconies add space for residences and shield walkers below (although not perfectly).

Some years ago, New Orleans outlawed new overhanging balconies, but this is not being challenged.

Best Hopes for a dry spot in an afternoon thunderstorm,

Alan

Good news: Bill has a job he can walk to.

Bad news: It's a nuclear bomb or bioweapon facility.

But it doesn't have to be...

I'm anxiously awaiting an article on how to change a bioweapons facility into an eco village.

You mean like
"Bases into Places"

Many of us remember remember walking to elementary school. Few children do so today, in part because major arteries are too dangerous to cross.

Public officials are (or should be) stingy with our dollars. Walkability is a cost-effective program because those public dollars address (at least) three major social problems at once: energy/climate, obesity/health and crime/social bonds. There may be other benefits as well.

The standard of what's "too dangerous" has gotten enormously more sensitive, far more so than the actual roads have gotten more dangerous. The Abject Fear of Everything has become palpable. We are now raising the bubble-wrap generation.

In my city, we have the periodic debate about putting in a pedestrian bridge by one of the high schools, because, nowadays, even high schoolers are apparently not expected to know how to cross the street. The street in question is not particularly worse than it was decades ago, but the fear and incompetence factors sure are, and nobody's expected to grow up any more, ever. Only they waited too long. The Americans With Disabilities Act would now require it to be a huge monstrosity with 300-foot ramps (21 or 22 foot US-highway clearance, 7% max grade.) A number of houses would have to be taken out to make room. Ain't gonna happen.

It tough to bicycle over a ramp with more than 7% grade. And impossible to bike over stairs. When I worked in sillycon valley, I biked accross I-280 to my job. Never saw anybody walk accross the pedestrian bridge.

Robert a Tucson

I haven't escaped from reality. I have a daypass.

In Santa Clara they actually have trails along the rivers that only trickle, probably because the water's all dammed up. But a lot of the trails are closed or unpaved or both, making it a half-ass solution for bicycle commuters. I guess there's not enough of us to matter.
The trails go under some freeways, but not the I-880 (argh). Those freeway crossings are terrible (and terribly dangerous). I now know how the bison must have felt seeing railroad tracks sectioning off their prairie land.

Schofield Barracks, island of Oahu, Hawaii: Nice, walkable, laid out in the 1920s and not changed much since. There are a few bicycles and mopeds were big with the officers - if you see a moped, salute it lol. I walked (no driver's license anyway) and then got my old Fuji bike from my great-aunt's and fixed it up, and started riding that. Got almost pulled over by the MPs too for speeding - speed limits on military bases are LOW and LOW for a reason - higher speeds mean more accidents and even the occasional death and the military's got no patience for that crap.

Prescott, Arizona: I live 25 miles outside of this small city. When I go to town, I generally park in one place and then just walk everywhere, it's great! You can wal everywhere in the area that's been around a while, there's sprawl too, sorry to say, but the main town which is stuff from 50-150 years ago is all walkable. Hell it's not even that bad a walk from downtown to the DES (welfare) office, it's a couple of miles but it's very pretty along there. There's a rarely-seen bus service too.

So, these are two places I know about.

Glenn -- What you are demonstrating here is a statistical artifact. Military bases score high because they have small administrative boundaries. There are many city neighborhoods that score as high or higher, but they are diluted because they are located within larger city boundaries that include essentially uninhabited, unwalkable areas (rivers, lakes, highways, storage and industrial facilities, etc.) and/or automobile-oriented areas.

In Ithaca, for example, the score is raised because the city boundaries are drawn tightly. The year 2000 population of the city proper was 29,287, but the surrounding Town of Ithaca had an additional population of 18,198, and the metropolitan area as a whole had a population of 100,135. So the percent of commuters on foot could be 13-25% depending on the boundaries you choose.

Compare to census tract 65 in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of D.C., with 25% of workers commuting on foot (and another 31% by subway).

The components of walkable neighborhoods, boiled down to the essentials, are:

1. Mix of land uses within walking distance
2. Well connected network of streets with short blocks
3. Pedestrian-oriented streetscapes and frontages (as defined by Jan Gehl, William H. Whyte, and others)

No doubt there are city neighborhoods within that last top ten list of cities over 250,000 that can score high on walking to to work and depending on how to draw the line on different administrative boundaries, we could have come up with very different top ten lists.

But it is very interesting that college towns and military bases came to the top over many other small towns that could have had higher walking rates.

Thanks for your links - very good and interesting stuff.

I dunno, is it really such a surprise?

Small college and military towns will tend to be relatively high in fit young childless folks who need to pinch pennies. They aren't yet hauling kids halfway across the state twice each week for soccer, hockey, football, and all the other 24/7/365 travel-intensive extracurriculars. Plus, the college or base is a concentrated destination. (Factories used be that too, but most have decamped to China.) In other towns, the commute/travel pattern will be more random.

Once you have the kids you must get the car.* Once you have the car, it rusts away and costs about the same for insurance no matter how little you use it, and it does almost always save time. Meanwhile, you've gotten a more responsible job with a dress code, and dealing with extra sets of clothes on sweaty days has become a minor nightmare. Plus you don't want to leave your headlight and/or pump on the bike where they will be stolen, but hyper-paranoid building security won't let you take them inside. So for many little reasons, you drive everywhere even if it's only three blocks.

Soon enough, you become the 35 or 40 year old who cannot climb even a one-story flight of stairs without stopping at some length to huff and puff and recover. And there endeth forever your walking (or bicycling or whatever) career, and whatever inclination you might have had to vote with such things in mind.

*yes, yes, I know, somebody who doesn't use a car is going to take umbrage, but we're talking statistical generalities here, not special circumstances.

Once you have the kids you must get the car.

Certainly kids can greatly amplify the various problems that have been suggested. Eg, if you're concerned about personal safety in a particular area, you REALLY don't want to face it with two small kids in tow. I can manage the stop at the grocer and the dry cleaner on foot and carry what I need home, but not when I need to keep a hand free to control the small child. Mass transit schedules (at least here) may mean a long wait except at rush hour -- which doesn't work well when day care has called to tell you your kid is sick and you need to pick them up NOW, now later. Most professional jobs come with, at least now and then, extra or irregular hours -- juggling the schedule for two careers can be hard enough, and the extra time that walking/biking/mass transit entails may make it impossible.

It's not just safety and one's own commute, the whole soccer-mom all-over-the-state sports thing is a real killer.

My neighborhood does not have the highest WalkScore (87, too far from a movie theater for one) but I find it perfectly acceptable.

I became interested in Urban Rail & TOD and the rest because I moved into a series of delightful neighborhoods and began to understand how they operated, and why they were so different from Standard post-WW II America.

I can make groceries at Zara's 2.5 blocks away, Williams 4 blocks, Magazine 4 blocks, Robert's (closed post-K, 6 blocks), Stein's Deli (new) 5 blocks, WalMart 7 blocks and 24 hour essentials @ WalGreens 4.5 blocks away.

My tailor is 4 blocks away, insurance agent 4 blocks (pre-K), barber 3 blocks but too expensive, I take a streetcar to another. Bars & restaurants abound.

Major employment centers are 0.8 to 2 miles away. And this is where the streetcar comes in. It links a series of walkable neighborhoods (I take the streetcar to my preferred barber) and major destinations ! It is the "glue" in holding a string of vibrant walkable destinations together.

Best Hopes for more TOD,

Alan

Let us keep in mind that many of the highly walkable parts of the older inner cities are often places that you wouldn't want to find yourself walking alone in at any time, much less at night.

One of the main reasons for the rapid development of the suburbs during the Post-War economic boom was 'white flight', pure and simple. Second-generation immigrant families now had the money to move out, while at the same time many of the older cities began a long downward slide into decay. So migration to the suburbs was a logical move for many.

City living can be great if you have the means to insulate yourself from its harsher, seamier, and more dangerous side, but if you are a member of the lower-middle class, cities can be rather unpleasant places to live.

Joule it should encourage you to learn that segregation is increasing in the US, and there have even been ludicrous happenings like blacks *asking* for their own lunchrooms in a college and things like that.

Working/middle class white rage is at an all-time high and increasing. San Francisco allegedly has Irish gangs terrorizing non-whites, and SF has been steadily becoming whiter in general.

Now if you'll excuse me, I've got to go do some experimenting, I want to see if I can make passable "noose" finger rings or bracelets in sterling silver..... untapped market you know....

Seriously, Joule, while it's fun to rattle your chain a little ....

There are two factors at work in inner-city dangerousness.

One is, in a lot of areas, crime goes down as the number of "eyes on the street" goes up. An inner-city area can be dangerous because the families are all asleep and there's no one on the street but the mugger and you.

But some inner city areas are teeming with people at all hours, but can still be dangerous because they're of another tribe than you are. In the past in the US another tribe meant they were Catholic and you were Protestant, you're German and they're Irish, etc. Groups that consider themselves all pretty much the same basic tribe now, used to be very antagonistic.

Nowadays it's all up to race. I admit I'd be very stupid to go into an all-black area that's teeming with ne'er-do-wells at night, or even during the day. But if there were solid family people there and I was the guest of a family, than it would be much less of a problem.

Sadly, race rivalries are a basic fact of life in the US now. Race determines so much and so much of it is regulated by law, and so much antagonism is encouraged, even mandated, by US laws and mores that well, you'd be a flippin' idiot to move to an area that's Not Your Tribe with peace'n'love dreams. These rivalries are going to become extreme in the coming hard times. So while we all might want to just get along, that's likely not in the future.

Which means, in the inner cities of the future, you're likely to be looked out for by your own Tribe, but at the same time if you get mugged that will likely be by a member of your own Tribe too.

I think all the racism in this country has gotten shoved under the rug because of the single person - car commuter suburban lifestyle. When that ends it will get a lot more intolerant.

I know the BNP (British far-right party) is getting very excited about peak oil for some reason or another.

I actually don't see going back to walking or biking increasing or for that matter decreasing racism. I do think increased population pressures in an environment of decreasing resources will put humans in "us vs them" mode though.

My theory on the BNP is that there's a "deep green" component to their worldview. Like the Nazis, like we PO types, like quite a number of peop