"1/4th of a mile" as the distance that people are willing to walk to take transit?

[M II A II R II K]

basics: walking distance to transit


04/25/2011

Read More: http://www.humantransit.org/2011/04/basics-walking-distance-to-transit.html


The question of walking distance in transit is much bigger than it seems. A huge range of consequential decisions -- including stop spacing, network structure, travel time, reliability standards, frequency and even mode choice -- depend on assumptions about how far customers will be willing to walk. The same issue also governs the amount of money an agency will have to spend on predictably low-ridership services that exist purely for social-service or "equity" reasons.

Yesterday I received an email asking about how walking distance standards vary around the world. I don't know the whole world, but in the countries I've worked in (US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) the view is pretty consistent:

- If you have to choose a single walking distance standard for all situations, the most commonly cited standard is 400m or 1/4 mi. Europe tends to be comfortable with slightly longer distances.

- However, people walk further to faster services. (Rail advocates are more likely to phrase this as "people walk further to rail".) This doesn't have to be a sociological or humanistic debate, though urbanists often frame it that way. If you are a rational and informed actor seeking to minimize travel time, it often makes sense to walk more than 400m to a rapid transit station rather than wait for a bus to cover such a short distance.

- Although the common standard is 400m or 1/4 mi, we all know that this cannot possibly be a hard boundary. It makes no sense to assume that if you live 395m from a bus stop you'll be totally happy to walk that distance while your neighbor, who lives 405m from the same stop, will be totally unwilling to. Obviously, the relationship between distance and willingness to walk is a continuous curve without sharp breaks. This has to be said because our language often forces us to create the illusion of sharp breaks, e.g. when we say something like "people are generally willing to walk up to 400m to transit."

.....

 

[drum118]

That is find and dandy if you are young, in good health, able to walk with no problems and live on the route line.

If you need a cane, walker, cannot walk long distance, have accessibility needs and elderly, this distance doesn't cut it.

At the same time, if you live on either side of that main walking distance that has a ring road, cul-de-sac or others that is not square blocks, that walking distance can become a mile every easy.

If you don't live on the line or are a very short walking distance from it, you are going to get very few people spending more than 15 minutes walking to a stop. Those no riders will stay in their cars.

So for all the criers calling for longer distance between stops, think what this will do for most people, but most of all, put yourself in their shoes and try walking that long distance daily.

 

[reaperexpress]

That is find and dandy if you are young, in good health, able to walk with no problems and live on the route line.

If you need a cane, walker, cannot walk long distance, have accessibility needs and elderly, this distance doesn't cut it.

At the same time, if you live on either side of that main walking distance that has a ring road, cul-de-sac or others that is not square blocks, that walking distance can become a mile every easy.

If you don't live on the line or are a very short walking distance from it, you are going to get very few people spending more than 15 minutes walking to a stop. Those no riders will stay in their cars.

So for all the criers calling for longer distance between stops, think what this will do for most people, but most of all, put yourself in their shoes and try walking that long distance daily.

I walk about 500m to my bus stop, and it's really not much of a walk. The main issue I have with the walk is the speed: walking is just slow. Of my 25 minute commute, 10 minutes are spent walking to and from bus stops.

How far people will walk also depends on other factors. For me, those are speed and cost. There is a stop closer to my house than the one I use, but the bus ride takes longer. Whenever I take the TTC and I don't have a YRT pass, I walk a fair distance south to Steeles to avoid paying double fare. When I commuted to U of T, I would ride my bike to Steeles and take the bus and subway the rest of the way. That way I saved a bunch of money and a little time (the bus is usually stuck in traffic)

Bikes are one thing that aren't talked about enough when it comes to stations' catchment area. Building bike infrastructure leading to subway stations encourages more people to take the subway by making the commute faster (relative to taking a feeder bus). It also saves the TTC money by freeing up space on feeder buses without reducing revenue.

 

[spaced]

I think the wider concept of walkability is more important for increasing public transit use. In an academic paper called Designing the Walkable City (a good read too) Southworth uses a great example of two neighbourhoods in California: One walkable, one more suburban, both are equally serviced by transit but the walkable neighbourhood uses transit much more. Transit is much more efficient in these walkable areas too since they often are mixed use and therefore have riders going coming and going instead of just rushes one way during peak times. The Urban Task Force (here's a report for implementing Sustainability in Britain (unfortunately this pdf is missing the illustrations) strongly recommends building transit around walkablity too.
People are also willing to walk further (for transit or other purposes) if the neighbourhood is safe and attractive. There was a survey from Europe (that Southworth uses) that shows people are willing to walk further (I think it was 160m) for every point the walker gave on a scale of beauty.
Anyways, nice report, thanks for sharing Mark. It's good to some thinking on the intricacies of transit riders going on.

 

[valkoholic]

Cool topic, thanks for the link. I've heard both 400 and 500 metres in Toronto as a standard (i.e about a 5 minute walk). One reason this is an improtant issue is when new communities are designed in Ontario tha main streets are two kilomteres apart. How to serve the huge parts of these communites that are more than walking distance from a 'trunk' route is a real challenge (especialy given how badly we lay-out new communities).

 

[Electrify]

That is find and dandy if you are young, in good health, able to walk with no problems and live on the route line.

If you need a cane, walker, cannot walk long distance, have accessibility needs and elderly, this distance doesn't cut it.

At the same time, if you live on either side of that main walking distance that has a ring road, cul-de-sac or others that is not square blocks, that walking distance can become a mile every easy.

If you don't live on the line or are a very short walking distance from it, you are going to get very few people spending more than 15 minutes walking to a stop. Those no riders will stay in their cars.

So for all the criers calling for longer distance between stops, think what this will do for most people, but most of all, put yourself in their shoes and try walking that long distance daily.

I post on humantransit.org on a regular basis (he even featured one of my comments for a further discussion on the topic), and while I generally support wider stop spacing, I have thought up of a solution to this problem: Have stops every 400m-500m on local routes, but half way between them implement "special stops" for seniors, those with special needs, etc. This way, service can remain fast, but also be accessible for those who happen to be less mobile.

 

[doady]

I post on humantransit.org on a regular basis (he even featured one of my comments for a further discussion on the topic), and while I generally support wider stop spacing, I have thought up of a solution to this problem: Have stops every 400m-500m on local routes, but half way between them implement "special stops" for seniors, those with special needs, etc. This way, service can remain fast, but also be accessible for those who happen to be less mobile.

Ummm... if people are willing to walk 400m or 500m, then 400m or 500m stop spacing is not needed at all...

 

[StIdes]

I post on humantransit.org on a regular basis (he even featured one of my comments for a further discussion on the topic), and while I generally support wider stop spacing, I have thought up of a solution to this problem: Have stops every 400m-500m on local routes, but half way between them implement "special stops" for seniors, those with special needs, etc. This way, service can remain fast, but also be accessible for those who happen to be less mobile.

Sounds great but you know people will abuse it... just like everything.

 

[vic]

Ummm... if people are willing to walk 400m or 500m, then 400m or 500m stop spacing is not needed at all...

Sure...if you're directly on the transit line. But most people would have to walk to the street that is serviced by the transit line, and then walk towards a stop/station.

E.g.: It's about 600m between Lansdowne and Dufferin stations, so no more than 300m anywhere along that stretch of Bloor. But if you live it Wallace and Brock, it's now over 700m to walk to Lansdowne or Dufferin stations.

 

[doady]

Sure...if you're directly on the transit line. But most people would have to walk to the street that is serviced by the transit line, and then walk towards a stop/station.

E.g.: It's about 600m between Lansdowne and Dufferin stations, so no more than 300m anywhere along that stretch of Bloor. But if you live it Wallace and Brock, it's now over 700m to walk to Lansdowne or Dufferin stations.

Wallace-Brock would not be within 400m of the Bloor line anyways even if there was at station at Brock. Adding a station at Brock would not add much to area within 400m walk due to overlap with Lansdowne and Dufferin stations, and it would slow the line down so people would be less willing to walk as far to use the line.

As the blogger points out in another post that people might be willing to walk 1000m for very fast, reliable, and frequent transit service, and the Bloor subway line certainly falls under that category. So walking 700m to use it is probably not a big deal for people at Wallace-Brock. For those that it is a big deal... well, that's why there's routes 29, 47, and 402. When they talk about 400m, they are mostly talking about buses.

I also think that the design of system - either grid or hub-and-spoke - influences how far people are willing to walk. For grid systems like Toronto, Brampton, Mississauga, etc that relys on transfers, the walking distance is more important than for a system designed around one-seat rides, like GO. That's my opinion anyway.

 

[dlam]

Just to add to this discussion, LEED encourages design of buildings with main entrances that are 400 m (1/2 mile) to 1 or more bus stops serving at least 2 or more bus lines in total with frequent services (~30-45 min), or 800 m (1/2 mile) to a rapid transit station (not including BRT).

I think these distances are appropriate and I do like the part suggesting having at least 2 bus lines within 400 m.

 

[howl]

Three points:

First the cut off line isn’t a hard line – it represents where a certain percentage of people will typically walk from. Some people will walk 500m, some only 200m. The number used is just the point where most people will walk from for a given level or type of service. Think of it as a bell-curve with the station at the highest point.

Second, the actual number could vary depending on various design and social variable. Attractive and safe sidewalks will extend the catchment area while unpleasant or unsafe walks will reduce it. One of the keys to good station area design is to make the walking experience better. This, in theory, should increase the ridership and revenues of the system. This is why cities and transit agencies should be interested in improving the quality of the pedestrian access in the vicinity of their stations.

Third, regarding the level and type of service, 400m to 500m is the common standard for higher-level transit like Light-Rapid-Transit (LRT). For this type of service stops should be about 800m apart. For subways or other grade separated urban systems the number is usually 500m to 750m, meaning stops should be about 1km to 1.5km apart. For heavy commuter rail the number may be even higher. Metrolinx uses 800m for its Mobility Hubs, which are generally centered on GO stations, but station spacing for heavy commuter rail shouldn’t be based on walking distance alone. People who are more than 800m from the station are expected to take the bus to connect. 800m from a GO station is the radius at which higher-density transit-oriented development should be located. At the other end of the scale local bus stops usually are given a radius of 250m.

 

[Electrify]

The flip side to all this, is if you add more stops to a line to encourage those who don't want to walk too far to get to transit to take it, they will then not take it because it is too slow. In my ideal world, local bus stops would be every 500m apart at major intersections and three in between, while alongside express/rapid stops, not including regional/commuter services, would be 2km apart at major intersections - with exceptions based on density, points of interest, local needs, etc. Currently, we are at about half of that. And considering our aging population plus the overall laziness of the general population, I am not expecting such a reorganization of transit stops anytime soon.

With that said, this is why I do not understand why those who supported Transit City 100% were so against having wider stop spacings while having local bus service alongside it. Those who have longer distances to cover and want to travel faster (which really should be the goal of large transit investments like this) could take the LRT, while those who have local needs or have mobility issues could take the local bus. As someone said in the comment section of one of the posts, "are we trying to take cars off the streets or pedestrians off the sidewalks?"