Walkable Neighborhoods: Street block vs. Cul-de-Sac

In a world full of cul-de-sacs, collectors and massive highways it seems we've forgotten one basic premise: people, not cars, need to get where they want to go.  And people don't think in terms of turning radii, average daily traffic and conflict zones.  

People think, "this is where I am and that's where I need to go."  We always have and, likely, always will.  Hash-tag biology. 

Nothing makes it easier for people to get where they want to go than a high-density of highly connected streets. Urban planning academics refer to these as the Link-Node Ratio and Connected Node Ratio.

Cul-de-sac sprawl vs. traditional street grid

Urban history

We habitually connected our streets until the automobile entered the scene.  We see this is older and more walkable parts of American cities. As detailed in recent books including Fighting Traffic: Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City, Walkable City and The End of the Suburbs: Where the American Dream Is Moving - to name a few - once the automobile came into cities we collectively threw 5,000 years worth of urban wisdom out the window.

Today

You're stuck driving further to where you want to be and spending more time traveling, unless you live in Portland, OR. Demographics are changing and more and more young people are opting out of car culture. Many in the old guard of the transportation world still want to design streets to move automobiles as far and quickly (they'll use the phrase "safely and efficiently") as possible.  Their answer is "tributary" streets. If you want to walk or ride a bicycle, it's almost like being on a battlefield.

The good news is that cities have begun to add more and more bike lanes, trails, bicycle boulevards, bike boxes, bike signals and cycle tracks.  The only thing is a dense street grid is the best thing a city can add to enable bicycling - besides a large, traditional university.  Transportation data is often collected on the municipal level, but time-and-time again people who live in the older and more traditionally designed neighborhoods ride their bicycles to work more than those in the suburbs.

Perhaps this is because of personality difference, but scientific correlations show something else: it's the street block structure! 

"Cycle Analysis Zones" results for an unnamed Western U.S. urban area

If it seems obvious ... it's because it is 

The map to the left shows an image from an adopted bikeways plan for a city in the Inner-Mountain western part of the United States by one of the nation's most recognized bicycle planning firms. 

Can you tell me where the center of the city is at?

The highly sophisticated analysis of this map shows areas of town that are "best suited for capturing large numbers of cycling trips." This intuitively makes sense considering the higher roadway densities and commercial mix of uses closer to the core.  The traditional neighborhood with a high density of four-way intersections makes it more conductive to usefully riding a bicycle or walking.  Of course the barrier between zones 11, 6 and 4 are high-velocity, four-lanes roads that act like fences in a cow pasture.

Looking back as we move forward 

It's difficult to retrofit existing areas because it's expensive and you don't want your home demolished. However, it's a relatively simple technical exercise to think about these principles when designing new sections of town. But it's going to take public support.  Most land developments are driving by the private market and many developers still live by the Federal Housing Commission's 1938 Bulletin stating the grid layout is "monotonous with little character, uneconomical and unsafe."  

We have lived by the words of that Bulletin for almost 80 years and look where it's got us.  Can we continue down this path? If you want to walk or ride a bicycle for a useful trip, you either need to live near the center of town or take your life into your hands while crossing a busy four-lane street.  We used to know how to build cities for people because [nearly] everybody walked. It's time we use some of our old knowledge on how to build cities and connect our streets! Let's make sure we have at least 70 percent four-way intersections.   

And now for some maps ... 

Houston, Texas, was laid out on a grid pattern.

More than 90 percent four-way intersections. 

Topeka, Kansas, has a similar pattern. Over 90 percent four-way intersections.

This little town in Kentucky has a grid, too.  

Austin, Texas,  has a nice grid pattern from the start.  

More than 90 percent four-way intersections.

Portland, Oregon.  Nice small and consistent block structure: 200ft x 200ft.

Buenos Aires, Argentina.  All the way back in the 1700s.  

Vancouver, BC.  They, also, founded their city with a grid pattern.

Melbourne, Australia.  Circa late 1800s. 

Top ten reasons to plan cities for people (not cars)

Over the past 80+ years city form took on an entirely new shape. The modern - Le Corbusier style - towers, office parks, freeways, and separated uses have dominated the landscape. The automobile has slowly usurped other users from the roads.  

However, the trajectory of urban design is beginning to move away from auto-oriented developments and back to people-oriented communities. The influence of urbanists like Jan Gehl and the transformation of Northern Europe has made its way into the conversations in cities. In the US, New York City has begun to re-engineer their streets to be more hospitable to human beings and Portland is known for helping launch the concept in the United States. However, cities should do much more and people should take top priority above all else. Here are the top ten reasons why:

1. Community -- cities oriented towards people reallocate the common space towards a public space for people to use. This invites a social atmosphere where you can run into an old friend in the street, or make a new one. Humans are social creatures who like people watching and interacting with their community. Designing cities around people, in every aspect, create conditions best suited for the human condition and provide areas that reinforce community.

2. Equity -- Children. Elderly. Disabled. Poor. Otherwise disenfranchised. Cities are not made for these people. Instead, cities have been designed for (and by) the upper middle-class. Turning the common space into a public space opens the access to everyone! I like to think about how a city does or does not work for someone who can not drive. In regards to just transit, lack of transportation to work is one of the biggest inhibitors to pulling people out of extreme poverty. Cities that work well for the most vulnerable citizens tend to work well for everybody.

3. Diversity -- Above all, one of the important aspects of a city is diversity and the options that come with the diversity. This includes diversity of people, buildings, organizations, businesses, etc. As an all encompassing term, diversity drives the city. Planning cities for people adds to the diversity in architecture at the ground level, uses in neighborhoods, uses of streets, number of people outside and - generally - more parks (and, thus, more diversity of parks) and trees. Plus, people of all financial backgrounds are more likely to be outside and meet as equals. 

4. Health -- People-oriented cities encourage citizens to be outside and walk.  I remember my study abroad experience in Maastricht, NL, and we walked or road our bicycles around the city nearly every day. There, the bicycle networks connect between towns and into the countryside.  However, one never feels alone.  There is a sense of security and destination in the regional design that gets everybody out. The more people are outside, walking or bicycling, the less they are sitting in their cars.  Walking is healthy.  Additionally, there are fewer wide automobile travel lanes - which are shown to have the highest rates of
fatal crashes for all users. I apologize for the
picture; I couldn't help myself. 

5. Economy --  Every year we take all of our accumulated wealth and shovel it as fast as we can to the middle east.  On top of that, city coffers all over the country are squeezed.  The new infrastructure for suburbia proves expensive to build and maintain. People-centered-cities have fewer miles of road (per person) and less area to cover with safety services. Also, the diversity of people cities diversifies the wealth through more smaller shops.  Also, there are fewer car crashes which cost. Portland, for example, found that car crashes cost the regional economy $958 million per year.  Plus, homes in people-cities will filter down the economic chain slower. 

6. Sustainability -- Cities planned around people are inherently sustainable in design.  It's possible to build "green" buildings all over the city and still have long distances between buildings and more asphalt than parks. It's a good to build LEED certified buildings but, taken out of the urban context and environment, can lead to negative consequences.  For example, Red Lodge Ales Brewing Company (love the beer) - in Montana - moved from a location downtown to the very edge of town to build a "sustainable" LEED certified building.  This new location is less sustainable because of the removed walkability. When cities are for
people, they are inherently more sustainable. 

7. Safety -- Each year over 30,000 people are killed in automobile-related crashes in the United States alone.  There has been a primary concern about time spent traveling and much less focused on a true increase in safety.  Statistics seem to matter when it's someone you know. Ever since the 1920s, we've known that speed is the cause of deaths.  However, we build things farther apart and people want to get their quickly. Therefor, we build wider roads and that propagate higher speeds. Building cities around people narrows the space between, increases pedestrian safety and creates safer conditions for motorists. The picture is 
of a young woman's ghost bike who was killed
in downtown Portland after being struck by a 
truck. 

8. Beauty -- This is entirely subjective, but when people are slowed down they have time to enjoy the architecture.  If people are speeding by in their cars, there is no reason to care about the architecture of a building. Think about the Modern architecture era and all of blank walls and places devoid of humanism.  Now, think about the older styles -- charm.  Additionally, people cities are generally much more compact and spend less money on roads, sewer, etc and have more money for things like parks, statues and beautification. 

9. Dignity -- Most people in the United States don't own cars.  It's probably higher in other parts of the world.  Yet, in an auto-oriented society, those without cars are often looked down upon as second-class citizens. It's degrading waiting long periods of time for a bus and watching cars zoom by. For younger and older citizens, having a people oriented city gives them independence and dignity - thus rising the dignity of the city. Planning for people (not cars) also gives dignity to the human condition and form. 

10. Connection -- Cities for people build connections with other people of current, past, and future generations.  Due to a high attention required to make cities work for people, they give us more of a chance to connect with the city (sitting, walking, being outside) and encourage an atmosphere of building things worth caring about. Building cities for people builds, something that's been missing, our connectedness with space and time. These cities build things for multiple generations and account for the history of past generations. 

11. WE ARE PEOPLE!!!!! 

Cars and the freedom of a minority

As shocking as it may sound, a minority of Americans own cars. Yet, much of the public space in cities (streets) is dedicated to their high-speed movement.  This take-over of public space has occurred in less than 100 years (less than 20 is more accurate) and did not happen without opposition.  People strongly opposed the take-over of city streets by the "death cars" at the turn of the century and people still oppose this take over, today.

Excellent book.

I first began thinking about this post when I listened to an NPR story Motorists to Urban Planners: Stay in Your Lane. The piece talks about the discussions surrounding modest attempts to bring more balance to the streets by implementing bicycle and bus only lanes in the Washington, DC area.  The story had the same basic argument ... "they want to take away our cars!!!"

Near the end of the piece, they interview Peter D. Norton about the historical role of the automobiles in the city.  They mentioned that he wrote the book, Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City, about the struggle at the beginning of the 20th century of bringing automobiles into the city. I was so excited, finally an urban planning related book that examines pre-1930! I bought the book, right away, and have been reading it since on my Kindle.

This post weaves concepts and stories from the book with my own ideas and interpretations.

Customary role of the street

In our current time people often think that before cars we lived in caves.  It's like nothing existed.  I've wrote about, in a past post, about how we tend to forget there were very intelligent people who lived before the Modern Era and we ignore much of this accumulated urban knowledge in decisions we make about cities today. Well, one of those things we forget is the customary role of the street throughout the ages. 

For thousands of years, a child could go from one side of town to the other without the threat of the being killed. The streets were designed for and used, mostly, by pedestrians - though horses, bicycles, and trams played their roles at various times. As Mr. Norton writes in this book, "When automobiles were new, many city people regarded them as a misuse of streets.  By obstructing and endangering other street users of unquestioned legitimacy, cars violated prevailing notions of what a street was for."

Imagine for a moment what it would have been like for you.  You had spent your entire life being able to go wherever you want.  You could walk down the middle of the road.  You could cross the street halfway.  You could walk leisurely in the road, cross at a diagonal or whatever you like.  When you're child had a lot of energy, you'd tell co to go play in the street.  Then, suddenly, you had these quick moving machines show up and start killing people. In your mind, they were taking away the street.

Strong Opposition to the Automobile

From 1900 through the 1920s there was strong resistance to the automobile.  It didn't just come from "special interest" groups, either.  Mayors, newspaper editorial boards, parents, nurses and nearly every other group was opposed to cars in the city. Most of this resistance came because they were seen as "speeding" machines (like a speeding bullet) and they killed people.  The book tells the story of a woman who lost two of her children in a short time to the automobile.  One child died while waiting along a street and another while riding his bicycle.

Children dedicating a monument to child car accident 

victims by holding up a flower for each child victim

killed in Pittsburgh in 1921. Scenes like this one 

were common across the US.

Groups mobilized against the automobile with the slogan "SAFETY FIRST!"  Police, also, did not like the automobile because it created chaos in the streets. All-in-all, cars were not welcome in the cities and were seen as better suited for rural areas.  Amongst the different groups, the primary lens which directed the view of automobiles was the traditional role of the street and justice. The Philadelphia Public Ledger wrote, in 1920, if a pedestrian is "hurt or annoyed [in an encounter with a car] don't ask wether the victim was wholly or in part to blame.  Suggest that the driver of the motor-car be lynched." 

Others suggested you shoot drivers with your revolver.  

This narrative played out for over 20 years.  Over this time, different lenses began to come into fashion: Justice, Order, Efficiency and, finally, Freedom.  Police had tried to keep speed-limits between 8 and 10 MPH.  Other people argued it wasn't efficient to keep cars slow and they should move quicker through the cities. However, it was the final lens that gave the death blow to cities resisting cars and opened the gates to unfettered access of the automobile into cities at high speeds.  "Motordom" appealed to the rights of the minority and their Freedoms. It worked. And we all know how it turned out.

Freedom of a minority

According to my calculations, from U.S. Census data, approximately 37 percent of people in the United States own a motor vehicle.  You certainly wouldn't know it by looking at any American city or listening to much of the discourse surrounding transportation.  Going back to that story I mentioned at the beginning of the post, urban planners are starting to see the serious value of giving other users rights to the street (as if rights are theirs to "give"). 

However, as with the past, people in cars think they have a right to as much space as they want for the cars.  People get upset about parking tickets and to openly say the phrase "restrict car use" would be committing political, and potentially, career suicide.  We walk a fine line ... trying not to upset car owners - 37 percent of population. I owned a car many years and probably will again. I was once one of those people who believed I had a right to my car wherever I wanted. I once called the police on a guy for parking on the street in front of my house. It's where I parked!!! I've changed.

Now, in my mind, beyond order and efficiency, I think this is an issue of justice.  Do children not have a right to their city?  Do mothers not have a right to not drive their children everywhere?  Do families and friends not have a right to safe cities?  If, as the Constitution says, "All [people] are created equally", don't the other 63 percent without a car have a right to not be harassed by those in automobiles?  

To be clear, I am not against cars.  I think cars are fantastic things for road-trips, camping, emergencies, agriculture, etc.  I just question whether or not on the opposite of "freedom-for" is an argument for "freedom-from"? Is there no freedom from automobiles? Safety.  Quiet. Peace. Sustainability. EQUITY. Are those not a type of freedom?

In all, cars are in cities and will probably be here to stay.  However, I think brining more balance to the equation should not be out of the question.  If there are hundreds of people who use a sidewalk, like here in downtown Portland, and seven parking spots where a wider sidewalk could ... should ... be, then that majority has a right from the freedoms of a minority and a wider sidewalk (pavement as called in England) should replace those parking spots. 

When discussions about using streets for more than just solo automobiles arise in the public dialogue, remember, this is not about punishing people for using automobiles.  It's about treating all citizens equally and ensuring safe streets --- for everybody!

As always, feel free to let me know what you think by leaving your comments below.  

Radical idea: people-way/ park beltway in Portland

In life and all of the hustle-and-bustle it's often difficult to find time to get in touch with nature.  We much too often do not take the time to smell the flowers.  Plus, if you live in a city, you may have to travel a ways to find quality public natural space and it's one of the most pleasurable experiences.  If you are like me, you find that you're blood pressure drops and you get a sense of peacefulness in the natural settings.

And if you're a child living in the city you must often be driven around.  Many people like Gil Peñalosa talk about the importance of making cities safe for children and "vulnerable" citizens - 8:80 he calls it.  We make our cities work for people who are 8 years old and those who are 80 and it works well for everybody.  He discusses the concept in this video.  Most people in the planning profession I talk with accept the idea.

In Portland, bicycling has become a more mainstream form and transportation.  This has not happened in a vacuum.  The City has made very concerted efforts over the past 20 years to improve bicycle infrastructure and has moved from 1% of trips by bicycle up to nearly 10% by some estimates.  It's a case of "if you build it they will come."

Now, with that in mind, I make a proposal that will probably be very controversial to some.  I fully understand reality and the post Jane Jacobs world of not touching anything (mostly from people's interpretations of her writings and not her actual writings).  However, we must consider that cities change all of the time and, sometimes, big projects can bring much more happiness to the citizens.  It's with that in mind that I make the following proposal.

Why not create a very large park/people-way loop in the inner SE part of Portland?  Think about how this sort of improvement would benefit your life.  You could enter the area and be totally secluded from the noise and pollution from the city and enjoy nature.  You could bring your children there and it would be safe to ride their bikes.  It would be a safe and pleasant area for your grandmother to walk (I love my grandmother, who doesn't).  This could not only improve life, but help save lives.  This could be part of a bigger picture to protect our quality of life for future generations.

We've done this sort of thing before with the City Beautiful movement around the turn of the 19th/20th century and we're very happy with it.  We have a long history of these sorts of projects.  With that, here is a visual proposal:

We can create this (greenbelt people-way park):

From what we already have:

Inside the people-way could look like this:

This is just a first proposal and, of course, would need much refining.  But why not think about it?  Think about how much it would improve your life.