Walking speeds have been extemely well studied by civil engineers and others. Grandmothers do better than 3 fps, the speed typically used to design pedestrian clearance times at signal-controlled crosswalks. For typical adults, walking speeds tend to be in the 5 to 6 feet per second range, about 3.4 to 4.0 mph. That's a pace that won't have anyone the least bit fit breathing hard. It might have you sweating a bit more than usual if you're in a suit and the temperature is 80+ and the sun is shining. Equivalent energy expenditure on a bicycle will have you traveling about 10 to 12 mph, with some of that variation depending on whether the bike places you upright or in a crouch.

In compact cities that were shaped pre-automobile, such as Boston, a walking pace will get you almost anywhere you want to go expeditiously. When I was in school, I used to walk from the far reaches of Cambridge to Boston's Chinatown and further; I often could have taken the subway, but walking times were more predictable. At rush hour, they were generally quicker than what you could have achieved in a car -- under those conditions, weather permitting, a bicycle or motorcycle was the quickest transport available. I currently live in traffic-saturated Southern California, and, here, a motorcycle can cut many travel times in half during peak periods.

The walking experience is qualitatively different from higher speed transport. Walking, you are immersed in the urban environment, and you have time to take much more of the detail in. While walking, it's possible to browse store windows, to encounter and interact with other walkers, and to to detoured for a few moments by something you find interesting on the way. Even on a bicycle, when compared to walking, the travel experience is much more focused on the destination, the path, and navigating the journey safely.

Ivan Illich argued decades ago that automotive transportation was what he called a "radical monopoly," a system that once started crowded out alternatives. The current buzzword for the same idea is "path dependence" -- but once a city puts in place its transport system, it's hell to change it.

Posted by: rashomon on April 5, 2004 03:41 PM

from what i've read elsewhere, commute time has pretty much stayed consistent throughout the ages. whether it's ancient athens, rome, or medieval london, most people average about 30 minutes commute or under. (though a recent WSJ article details how bikes may remake africa for people walking hours to work each day, though they may be outliers.)

Posted by: dj superflat on April 5, 2004 03:48 PM

I don't know why it is, but elite opinion has always been anti-car. At least that's what they say (whether they believe what they say is another matter).
I love my car. Sure the car has wreaked havoc with 19th and early twentieth century cities, but it's also created a landscape of big low buildings spaced out nicely from each other (what is always disparagingly called sprawl) which has a beauty of its own.
And the sliding gliding view of the world that you get from a car; that's as good in its way as the slower way you see the world when you're walking.
And lots of people enjoy being in their own bubble away from both home and office, on the 20 or 30 minute commute by car.
A big rasberry to the elites!!

Posted by: ricpic on April 5, 2004 06:04 PM

About flying cars: what in the world makes you think it's ever going to happen? Can you say "terrorism"?

Posted by: Aaron Armitage on April 7, 2004 03:21 PM






Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember your info?