Safe, comfortable pedestrian activity is now rare in most American cities. Children have to be delivered everywhere, while shoppers drive from store to store because they can't safely walk or cross streets on foot. Eliminating pedestrians has hastened traffic build-up, which in turn generates a perceived need for wider roads.

 ...a deeper issue than the functional problem caused by road widening and traffic build-up is a loss of neighborhood sense of community. Easy foot access, where neighbors meet and talk on foot, helps develop contacts, friendships, trust and commitment to their community. When everyone is in cars, there can be no social contact, and social contact is essential to developing commitment to neighborhood.

 Over the years the change in street design standards has been towards smoother and wider streets. Former 9 foot wide traffic lanes are now either 12 or 14 feet wide. Curb radii grew from 5 feet to 40 feet or more -- allowing cars to speed around corners, and increasing the pedestrian crossing distance. And it wasn't cheap -- modern road standards -- particularly the great width of today's streets -- have significantly increased the cost of road construction. Suburban towns banned on-street parking so cars could travel faster, further diminishing pedestrian access to shopping by making it more difficult to park and less safe to walk. In time, strip centers emerged, and the pedestrian streetscape disappeared.

 ...the wider the street, the higher the volume and speed of cars, and the lower the volume of pedestrians. Traffic volume also increases on a per lane basis relative to the width of the street. Further, the wider the street, the more aggressive the drivers* behavior. The number of drivers disregarding traffic lights [in our study in Seattle] increases significantly with traffic volume, speed, and street width...shocking... since [these increases] occur in pedestrian-oriented shopping districts in a city where ten times more tickets are given to pedestrians violating traffic laws than to drivers infringing on the rights of pedestrians.

 Less malleable in the hands of traffic engineers, narrow streets are more likely to retain old-fashioned, pedestrian-friendly characteristics because they are more difficult for traffic engineers to widen, add special turn lanes, or parking restrictions...Vehicular traffic, per se, is not a hindrance to a healthy pedestrian environment, but the viability of the pedestrian environment depends on finely tuned vehicular volumes (and hence the street width allocated to the automobile) and speeds.

 The research shows that at least 380 pedestrians per hour (on both sides of the street) yields a healthy, solid pedestrian environment -- a condition found in both the narrow and medium-width streets. But with 150 pedestrians per hour, the wide street appears empty and unwelcoming. Only in the narrow street are pedestrians found to be navigating at ease along and across the roadway. Only there do they jaywalk consistently...Jaywalking indicates the pedestrian's willingness and ability to negotiate with drivers to share the roadway safely with them -- both of which are necessary characteristics of a healthy pedestrian environment...jaywalking occurred in a significant way on the narrow street holding a total of 560 cars per hour at a speed of less than 25 mph. It was nonexistent on the medium-width street with 1,300 cars per hour.

 Further corroborating greater comfort levels on the narrow street, we find more elderly people and people with a low level of mobility, more bicyclists, more people accompanied by pets, and strolling rather than walking on the narrow street than on the wider streets.

 Drivers are non-aggressive and civilized in our narrow street with 300 cars per hour per lane and with traffic moving by at no more than 25 mph. But at the same 25 mph speed, with slightly more than 500 cars per hour per lane (the medium-width street), drivers are significantly more aggressive with [higher percentages] running through yellow and red lights...

 Drivers must be able to see pedestrians and to establish eye contact with them. This contact is naturally easier on a narrow street where the pedestrian is more likely to fall within the driver's cone of vision than on a wide street. It is also easier at vehicular speeds of less than 20 mph when drivers do not need to concentrate their vision solely on the driving lane. Further, speeds exceeding 25 mph seem to support aggressive driver behaviors.

 A pedestrian-friendly street should have crosswalks every 100 feet or so -- at midblock as well as at intersections. The timing of lights at crosswalks should favor pedestrians rather than vehicular traffic -- with control buttons and a 60-second maximum wait being recommended. Finally, benches, covered bus stops, plants and trees, and other *soft* textures seem to help humanize the pedestrian realm.

 Looking for how your city can develop an exciting, varied population with ample restaurants, libraries, museums, music, and other urban amenities, but afraid of spending long hours in traffic? Looking for how to get people out of their cars? Does manhattanization, a pejorative for high density growth, bring loss of mobility and social isolation? Or does suburban sprawl? Manhattan or Orange County -- what are the environmental tradeoffs?

 The California Energy Commission funded the Sierra Club to explore this study in San Francisco...

 Danville-San Ramon [Orange County] own nearly three times as many cars and drive nearly four times as far per person, and 5.5 times as far per family [than people that live in northeast San Francisco]. [The SF folks] drive 1/3 the national average. Compared to the average Danville-San Ramon family, [the SF folks] save over $14,000 annually in auto costs...

 ...the average [SF person] saved 74 percent of the gas consumed by the Danville-San Ramon resident...

 ...because their trips are shorter and walking and transit handier, every mile that a San Franciscan rides on transit reduces auto driving by ten miles, compared to Danville and San Ramon.

 ...the long-term buildup of denser, more convenient shopping and jobs that transit facilitates [creates] tremendous leverage to reduce driving. This makes transit a damn good buy -- if 3 to 4 story condos and apartments with neighborhood commercial on the ground floor fill the underused land surrounding stations and along transit corridors.

 ...as residential density doubles, per capita auto driving decreases by 25 to 30 percent, as long as neighborhood commerce is allowed to grow appropriately. [This percent reduction has been found in several cities when residential density doubles]...As a consequence, New Yorkers drive 1/4, while Manhattan residents drive 1/7 the US average.

 [Is it more effective to encourage central city infill versus suburban infill? Our study found that] central city infill reduces driving the most.