This paper presents an analysis of walking indicators related to the structure of the road network, differentiated by measures of the quality, connectivity, and proximity of the road network. These measures were computed for various zones of the city of Rome and for the historical center of Lucca and Venice in Italy. The aims of the study were (a) to understand whether some measures were more suitable than others for describing the walkability (i.e., accessibility to walking) of an area, (b) to define the best single measure or the optimal combination of measures to describe the walkability of an area, (c) to define some benchmark values for the analyzed walkability measures, and (d) to obtain valuable guidelines to define a pedestrian-oriented road network. The results showed the importance of variables such as the number of nodes and the size of the blocks. Moreover, the results demonstrated that although single measures of connectivity were not self-explanatory for describing walkability, the combination of various measures could be more effective. Finally, the study derived the benchmark values of 3 to 6 nodes per hectare for the density of nodes, 0.5 to 0.9 hectare per block for the size of blocks, and 800 m for the maximum walking distance for a pedestrian-friendly, transit-oriented development.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HsiaoS., LuJ., SterlingJ., and WeatherfordM.Use of Geographic Information System for Analysis of Transit Pedestrian Access. In Transportation Research Record, No. 1604, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 50–59.
2.
ZielstraD., and HochmairH. H.Comparative Study of Pedestrian Accessibility to Transit Stations Using Free and Proprietary Network Data. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2217, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 145–152.
3.
Holguín-VerasJ., ReillyJ., Aros-VeraF., YushimitoW., and IsaJ.Park-and-Ride Facilities in New York City: Economic Analyses of Alternative Locations. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2276, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 123–130.
4.
CiaffiF., CiprianiE., and PetrelliM.Feeder Bus Network Design Problem: A New Metaheuristic Procedure and Real Size Applications. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, Vol. 54, 2012, pp. 798–897.
5.
IaconoM., KrizekK. J., and El-GeneidyA.Measuring Non-Motorized Accessibility: Issues, Alternatives, and Execution. Journal of Transport Geography, Vol. 18, 2010, pp. 133–140.
6.
BernickM., and CerveroR.Transit Villages in the 21st Century.McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
7.
SchlossbergM.From TIGER to Audit Instruments: Measuring Neighborhood Walkability with Street Data Based on Geographic Information Systems. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1982, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 48–56.
8.
ØvstedalL., and RyengE.Understanding Pedestrian Comfort in European Cities: How to Improve Walking Conditions. Proc., European Transport Conference, Cambridge, United Kingdom, Association for European Transport, Henley-in-Arden, United Kingdom, 2002. http://abstracts.aetransport.org/paper/index/id/1496/confid/8. Accessed July 1, 2012.
9.
StonorT., De Arruda CamposM. B., ChiaradiaA., and TakamatsuS.Towards a ‘Walkability’ Index. Proc., European Transport Conference, Palais de la Musique et des Congres, Strasbourg, France, Association for European Transport, Henley-in-Arden, United Kingdom, 2003. http://abstracts.aetransport.org/paper/index/id/1755/confid/9. Accessed June 20, 2012.
10.
BasileO., PersiaL., and UsamiD. S.A Methodology to Assess Pedestrian Crossing Safety. European Transport Research Review, Vol. 2, 2010, pp. 129–137.
11.
EwingR., and CerveroR.Travel and the Built Environment. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2010, pp. 265–294.
12.
ManaughK., and El-GeneidyA.Validating Walkability Indices: How Do Different Households Respond to the Walkability of Their Neighborhood?Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2011, pp. 309–315.
13.
MaghelalP. K., and CappC. J.Walkability: A Review of Existing Pedestrian Indices. URISA Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2011, pp. 5–19.
14.
PetritschT. A., LandisB. W., HuangH. F., and DowlingR.Pedestrian Level-of-Service Model for Arterials. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2073, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008, pp. 58–68.
15.
LandisB. W., VattikutiV. R., OttenbergR. M., McLeodD. S., and GuttenplanM.Modeling the Roadside Walking Environment: Pedestrian Level of Service. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1773, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 82–88.
DillJ.Measuring Network Connectivity for Bicycling and Walking. Presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004.
18.
FrankL. D., SchmidT. L., SallisJ. F., ChapmanJ., and SaelensB. E.Linking Objectively Measured Physical Activity with Objectively Measured Urban Form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Vol. 28, 2005, pp. 117–125.
LeeC., and Vernez MoudonA.Neighbourhood Design and Physical Activity. Building Research and Information, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2008, pp. 395–411.
21.
Vernez MoudonA., LeeC., CheadleA. O., GarvinC., JohnsonD., SchmidT. L., WeathersR. D., and LinL.Operational Definitions of Walkable Neighborhood: Theoretical and Empirical Insights. Journal of Physical Activity and Health, Vol. 3, Supplement 1, 2006, pp. 99–117.
22.
ZhangM., and KukadiaN.Metrics of Urban Form and the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1902, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005, pp. 71–79.
23.
PortaS., and RenneJ. L.Linking Urban Design to Sustainability: Formal Indicators of Social Urban Sustainability Field Research in Perth, Western Australia. Urban Des International, Vol. 10, No. 1, 2005, pp. 51–64.
24.
GoriS., NigroM., and PetrelliM.Improving Accessibility to Public Transport with Interventions on the Pedestrian Network.Vivere e camminare in città - culture e tecniche per l'accessibilità, Michèle Pezzagno, Egaf edizioni, 2003. ISBN 978-88-8482-501-8.
25.
SchlossbergM., and BrownN.Comparing Transit-Oriented Development Sites by Walkability Indicators. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1887, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2004, pp. 34–42.
26.
KerI., and GinnS.Myths and Realities in Walkable Catchments: The Case of Walking and Transit. Road and Transport Research, Vol. 12, No. 2, 2003, pp. 69–80.
27.
CanepaB.Bursting the Bubble: Determining the Transit-Oriented Development's Walkable Limits. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1992, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2007, pp. 28–34.
28.
CalthorpeP., and FultonW.The Regional City.Island Press, Washington, D.C., 2001.
29.
GoriS., NigroM., and PetrelliM.The Impact of Land Use Characteristics for Sustainable Mobility: The Case Study of Rome. European Transport Research Review, Vol. 4, 2012, pp. 153–166.
30.
WangX., and TianZ.Pedestrian Delay at Signalized Intersections with a Two-Stage Crossing Design. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2173, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp. 133–138.
