Encourage Walking with Urban Planning
People take cars for walkable trips in part because such trips are boring and unattractive. Better design of the urban environment could create more pedestrians. Karen Hopkin reports
SUBSCRIBE TO Science Quickly
On supporting science journalism
If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.
Most of us don’t think twice about getting behind the wheel even for short hops to pick up some milk. And that’s not just because cars are convenient, or because we’re lazy. According to Andrew Furman of Ryerson University in Toronto [http://bit.ly/dr76ot], it’s because in many places in North America it’s just not that nice to walk. But if cities and suburbs put more effort into building better pedestrian routes, he says more people might leave their SUVs at home.
With its older cities, Europe is more amenable to meandering. Think cobblestone streets and hidden gardens. But North American cities and suburbs are more modern and car-centric, which generally forces pedestrians and cyclists to always take the same, boring path from A to B. But what if you could take a detour through a lobby that exhibits art, or down a lane that borders a green space? Furman thinks you’d be more likely to hoof it, which would be good for you and the environment.
Take New York City’s High Line, an abandoned railroad that’s been converted into a public park. Since its opening a year ago, this elevated walkway has people strolling through the meatpacking district. Even for folks who like to walk, that’s quite a feat.
—Karen Hopkin
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism
Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.
When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.
Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber
