The nostalgia that many Americans have for their college years can be tied to the walkability of college campuses. Compared to most towns and cities in the United States, college campuses are highly walkable. Harvard Professor Ann Forsyth distinguishes a few qualities of “walkability,” transversability, or physical ease of travel — compactness, or proximity between destinations — safety, including traffic dangers — physical enticement, or the presence of crosswalks and traffic lights — sociability, or how pleasant a location is — and transportation, or the existence of public transit options. The effects of walkable communities are overwhelmingly positive — they reduce car pollution, encourage healthy outdoor exercise and attract customers to local centers of commerce.
Binghamton University’s campus fulfills most, if not all, of Forsyth’s requirements. Distance between buildings is minimized, and for students who live in the Apartments Community, the campus shuttle is a reliable alternative to walking. The Union also serves as a hub for campus activity.
But, cities in “the real world,” away from college towns, do not have the same degree of walkability — rather, they often emphasize cars over people. According to Dr. Martin Melosi, “‘as much as one half of a modern American city’s land area is dedicated to streets and roads . . . space allocated for other forms of transportation ultimately shrank or disappeared . . . sidewalks — normally considered essential to separate pedestrians from various transportation modes — were less often constructed along many urban roads and streets in the automobile era.’” Of course, not all cities are uniformly car-centric. The website Walk Score attempts to quantify cities’ walkability. New York City boasts a Walk Score of 88, a Transit Score of 89, and a Bike Score of 69. The least walkable city in the United States, Fayetteville, NC, has a Walk Score of 21. According to the website, “Almost all errands require a car in Fayetteville.”
Commuting times are also significantly higher away from college campuses. The Census Bureau estimated in 2019 that “the average one-way commute in the United States increased to a new high of 27.6 minutes” and that the “longest average travel times were associated with various forms of public transportation . . . workers who traveled to work by bus had an average commute of 46.6 minutes.” For many Americans, the commute is purgatorial. Some might try to preemptively do work on the train but may find their efforts stymied by the lack of stable Wi-Fi. Others might listen to music or podcasts to kill time. Time spent commuting could be better spent elsewhere, such as enjoying time with family and friends.
Walkability doesn’t have to stop at the campus gates. Urbanist Jeff Speck suggests that efforts to build walkable cities should focus on four main goals: “[T]here needs to be a proper reason to walk, the walk has to be safe and feel safe, the walk has to be comfortable and the walk has to be interesting.” Currently, Americans do not have a “reason to walk” due to suburban sprawl. Post-World War II, suburbs were constructed with cars in mind — large residential communities became the focus rather than proximity to necessities, resulting in circuitous routes looping through neighborhoods rather than direct paths to places like schools and grocery stores. With a return to the “traditional neighborhood,” including small streets and a compact mix of businesses — such as a single block with a hairdresser, restaurant, school and library — communities become more walkable, and residents become more inclined to walk rather than drive to faraway appointments. In other words, cities modeled on New York’s dense grid might be more conducive to walkability. Reliable and enjoyable public transit is also key to a walkable city, allowing residents to travel from one end of the city to the other according to their needs.
Secondly, for walks to be safe, Speck suggests that there must be a minimization of traffic accidents — “When you double the block size . . . you almost quadruple the number of fatal accidents on non-highway streets … when we widen the streets to accept the congestion that we’re anticipating . . . People move further from work . . . those lanes fill up very quickly with traffic, so we widen the street again, and they fill up again.” Sidewalks, which are built for pedestrians, should be the target of infrastructure funding, not highways or streets.
Of the “comfortable” city Speck says, “all animals seek, simultaneously, prospect and refuge. We want to be able to see our predators, but we also want to feel that our flanks are covered.” The height of surrounding buildings factors into the comfort of walks. Speck identifies a general “one to six” guideline of height to width — a six-block-wide spread enclosed by walls that are one-block tall.
Lastly, Speck proposes fostering lively areas — “Nothing interests us more than other people.” When the city of Columbus, Ohio, built a bridge to connect two neighborhoods — one convention center–based, the other shopping-based — and to bypass the local highway, social life flourished. The neighborhood became more walkable, and people became more inclined to spend time there, patronizing local businesses.
Walkable cities are achievable and, more than that, they lead to a better quality of life for all. More funding and attention should be paid to urban planning initiatives that work toward building such communities.
Kathryn Lee is a sophomore double-majoring in English and economics.