Walkability Indicators for
Pedestrian-Friendly Design
Stefano Gori, Marialisa Nigro, and Marco Petrelli
This paper presents an analysis of walking indicators related to the struc-
ture of the road network, differentiated by measures of the quality, connec-
tivity, 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 walk-
ability (i.e., accessibility to walking) of an area, (b) to define the best single
measure or the optimal combination of measures to describe the walk-
ability 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. More-
over, the results demonstrated that although single measures of connectiv-
ity 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.
The pedestrian network represents a key component in the devel-
opment of a more sustainable mobility system, even if it is often
overlooked. Increased distances and poor connectivity usually dis-
courage walking and bicycling and, consequently, physical activity.
In addition, good accessibility to transit services is a fundamental
input to ensure a high level of transit ridership (1). If transit is not
accessible, “other aspects of transit quality, such as: cost, travel time,
crowding and safety become irrelevant for mode choice” (2, 145).
Accessibility to transit services has mostly been analyzed in refer-
ence to the use of park and ride facilities (3) or feeder bus services
for connection with the main rapid mass transit network (4). How-
ever, there has been increasing interest in bicycling and walking
accessibility (5).
Walking accessibility research has grown in popularity in recent
years because of its capacity to offer an alternative basis for sustain-
ability policy regarding the built environment and travel. With ref-
erence to the transit service, “since all transit trips involve some
degree of walking, it follows that transit-friendly environments must
also be pedestrian-friendly” (6). Walking accessibility can be mea-
sured as a function of various indicators related to the structure of the
road network (widely overlapping with the pedestrian network), the
socioeconomic and land use characteristics of a neighborhood, and
Department of Engineering, Roma TRE University, 62 Via Vito Volterra, 00146
Rome, Italy. Corresponding author: M. Nigro, marialisa.nigro@uniroma3.it.
Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
No. 2464, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., 2014, pp. 38–45.
DOI: 10.3141/2464-05
38
the more or less inviting and safe pedestrian environment. For an
urban neighborhood to be considered pedestrian friendly, it has to
provide the following: appropriate paths to reach the destinations,
proximity to the main attraction points, an interesting viewscape
(7–9), safe conditions with protected multilane crossings (10), side-
walks and lighting, and appropriate land use development and a
certain degree of land use mixing (11).
The literature includes several studies on the topic of walking
accessibility, or walkability. Manaugh and El-Geneidy analyzed the
effects of some walkability indicators across trip purposes and for
households with varying characteristics in the city of Montreal (Can-
ada) (12). Iacono et al. defined impedance functions for walking and
bicycling for several types of activities (work, shopping, school, res-
taurant, and recreation) with an application in a small study area in
Minneapolis, Minnesota (5). Maghelal and Capp reviewed 25 pedes-
trian indicators developed in the past two decades to generate com-
prehensive and detailed measures of built environment variables
related to walking (13). Some authors have proposed to compute
a pedestrian level of service, mainly based on methods adopted by
the Highway Capacity Manual (14, 15). Ewing and Cervero recog-
nized a relationship between the users of the public transport and the
characteristics of the road network (connectivity, size of the blocks,
and continuity of the sidewalks) (11). Ewing proposed guidelines
for the design of pedestrian and public transport-oriented areas by
identifying 23 specific recommendations on various aspects such as
the maximum walking distance to the transit stop or the maximum
dimension of the blocks (16).
This study analyzed walking indicators related to the structure of
the road network. These indicators are usually reported in the litera-
ture on the connectivity of the road network (17). This study ana-
lyzed measures of quality and proximity as well (7). The goal of the
study was to provide useful information and establish a performance
standard for walkability in new or existing development areas. In par-
ticular, the study applied walking indicators to zones in Rome and in
the historical center of Lucca and Venice in Italy. The study aimed to
do the following: (a) understand whether some measures are more
suitable than others to describe the walkability of an area, (b) define
the best single measure or the optimal combination of measures to
describe the walkability of an area, (c) define benchmark values for
the analyzed walkability measures, and (d) obtain guidelines to define
a pedestrian-oriented road network.
Walkability Indicators for Evaluation
of Pedestrian Networks
To assess the walkability of an urban neighborhood, several indi-
cators can be adopted to describe the quantitative characteristics
of the road network, which largely overlaps with the network on
Gori, Nigro, and Petrelli
which pedestrians move. Walkability indicators can be summarized
in measures related to the following three main categories (7):
1. Measures of connectivity,
2. Measures of quality, and
3. Measures of proximity.
Measures of connectivity are the indicators that have been mostly
adopted in walking accessibility analysis (18, 19), but also in studies
that link walking to physical activity (20, 21). Measures of connectiv-
ity can be used to define the range of alternatives for the pedestrian:
areas with a higher density of intersections tend to be more walking
oriented, as intersections represent the number of possible choices for
walking. Schlossberg found that walkable areas are characterized by a
minimum value of 0.4 node per hectare and areas exceeding 0.6 node
per hectare are highly walkable (7).
Measures of connectivity include the number and density of nodes,
but also the number of links, their density, and their total length. Mea-
sures related to the number and size of blocks are measures of con-
nectivity as well. On the one hand, the greater is the number of blocks,
the greater is the number of nodes in the network and the greater the
connectivity. On the other hand, the larger is the size of the block, the
greater the length of the walkway is. Ewing and Cervero (11) found
that, for a high degree of walkability, block lengths of about 90 m are
desirable; blocks of 120 to 150 m work well; and for blocks as long
as 180 to 240 m or greater, superblock dimensions, adjacent blocks
become isolated from each other.
Additional measures to quantify connectivity based on graph
theory are reported in Dill (17) and Zhang and Kukadia (22). The
measures are called the alpha index (α) and the gamma index (γ). The
alpha index (Equation 1) uses the concept of a circuit (a finite, closed
path starting and ending at a single node) and represents the ratio
of the number of existing circuits to the maximum number of circuits.
The gamma index (Equation 2) is the ratio of the number of links in
the network to the maximum (max) possible number of links between
nodes (Equation 3).
links number − nodes number + 1
α= (1)
2 (nodes number ) − 5
links number
γ= (2)
max number of links between existing nodes
where
max number of links between existing nodes
= 3 • ( number of nodes − 2) (3)
The alpha and gamma indicators are measured on a scale of 0 to 1,
where greater values indicate higher connectivity. Dill reported a
comprehensive review of all the connectivity measures (17).
The quality of the road network is evaluated by means of a clas-
sification of the links, reflecting the hierarchy of the infrastructures
and identifying feasible paths for pedestrians. In particular, it is pos-
sible to define streets that are adverse to pedestrians as, for example,
those characterized by two or more lanes in each direction (multi-
lane roadways) and by high traffic volumes or high average speed
(here called Type 2).
Otherwise, links with one lane in each direction, low traffic, and
low speed (here called Type 1) do not usually represent a barrier for
pedestrians and, for these reasons, Type 1 links are considered eas-
39
ily accessible. Measures of quality are the number of links of each
type, their length and density, their percentage value compared with
the total number in the network, and so on.
Finally, proximity represents an evaluation of how much the road
network can capture in terms of pedestrian coverage with respect to a
specific destination. The main adopted proximity measure is simply
the ratio of the buffer area of the pedestrian network over a Euclidean
buffer area within the maximum acceptable walking distance. This
measure is known in the literature as the pedestrian catchment area
(PCA) or the ped-shed method (23).
Figure 1 presents an example of the computation of the PCA,
considering an airline buffer of 500 m (the ideal area, IA, defined by
Euclidean distances) and a network buffer of 500 m (the pedestrian
area, PA, defined by street network distances). The PCA is then
computed as the ratio between the PA and the IA. A low PCA value
indicates the presence of a low number of links used by pedestrians
or excessive tortuosity of the links, which leads to poor walkability
of the total area.
The acceptable threshold to obtain good walking coverage of an
area is a PCA value of 50% to 60%. A PCA value lower than 30%
might correspond to an inaccessible walking area (7). The PCA mea-
sure is only related to travel distances. The PCA measure does not
take into account that some roads can represent an important bar-
rier for pedestrians and these can be crossed only through signalized
intersections, thus increasing the total travel time.
To improve the descriptive capability of the PCA measure, it is
possible to adjust the PCA so that it identifies the threshold not in
terms of distances but in terms of travel times. Such an adjusted
measure can be called the modified PCA (MPCA) or the ratio
between the modified pedestrian area (MPA), taking into account
the delay that occurs for crossing signalized intersections, and the
IA (24). After computing the total delay for each pedestrian path, the
delay can be translated into a reduction of the distance traveled to
obtain the MPCA indicator. The MPCA can be considered similar to
the impeded PCA proposed by Schlossberg (7). The street network
without the major roads or pedestrian hostile roads is used to calcu-
late the MPCA, although the MPCA does not remove any street but
reduces the traveled distance taking into account possible delays.
Computation of the PCA is strictly correlated with the definition
of the maximum walking distance; a strong debate has focused on
the estimation of this value, especially for access to transit stops.
Schlossberg and Brown found that a transit-oriented development
(TOD) zone of 400 to 800 m is more oriented toward pedestrian
travel (25). Ker and Ginn conducted a survey to identify the paths
followed by users to reach some transit stations in the metropolitan
area of Perth, while observing common trips of at least 1 km (26).
Canepa compared experiences in North America and noted that the
basin of influence varied significantly depending on the type of ser-
vice, but also as a function of many other elements (density, design
of road network, land use, and so on) (27).
This study reviewed indicators in the literature for the measure-
ment of the walkability of an area as a function of the structure of
the road network. Table 1 shows a list of such indicators, divided as
measures of connectivity, quality, and proximity.
Assessment of Walkability
in Urban Neighborhoods
The study applied the walking indicators previously presented to
measure the quality, connectivity, and proximity of the road net-
work to zones of the city of Rome and the historical center of Lucca
40 Transportation Research Record 2464

(a) (b)

FIGURE 1   Example of PCA computation: (a) IA and (b) PA.

TABLE 1   Indicators for Evaluation of Walkability

Type Measures Unit Definition

Proximity IA m2 Area defined by Euclidean distances

Proximity PA m2 Area defined by street network distances
Proximity MPA m2 Area defined by street network distances taking into account the delay at signalized
intersections
Proximity PCA % PA–IA ratio
Proximity MPCA % MPA–IA ratio
Connectivity Alpha (α) — Ratio of number of actual circuits to maximum number of circuits
Connectivity Gamma (γ) — Ratio between number of existing links and maximum number of links
Connectivity Nodes number — Number of nodes inside IA
Connectivity Nodes density nodes/ha Average number of nodes per hectare inside IA
Connectivity Links number — Number of road links inside IA
Connectivity Links density m/ha Average length of road links per hectare
Connectivity Links length m Total length of road links inside IA
Connectivity Blocks number — Number of blocks inside IA
Connectivity Blocks density ha/block Average dimension of each block
Quality Links number (Type 2) — Number of road links of Type 2 (two or more lanes in each direction and high
traffic volume or high average speed) inside IA
Quality Links number (Type 1) — Number of road links of Type 1 (fewer than two lanes in each direction and low
traffic volumes or low average speed) inside IA
Quality Links of Type 2 % Value of road links of Type 2 compared with number of road links inside IA
Quality Links of Type 1 % Value of road links of Type 1 compared with number of road links inside IA
Quality Links length (Type 2) m Total length of road links of Type 2 inside IA
Quality Links length (Type 1) m Total length of road links of Type 1 inside IA
Quality Links density (Type 1) m/ha Average length of road links of Type 1 per hectare
Quality Links density (Type 2) m/ha Average length of road links of Type 2 per hectare

Note: — = nondimensional.
Gori, Nigro, and Petrelli 41

TABLE 2   Location and Characteristics of Analyzed Areas of Rome

Area Location Period of Development Main Characteristics

Acilia Outer suburb 1950 Low density, without development plan, built area, residential
Piazza Bologna Central area 1920 High density, built area, mixed land use
Piazza Mazzini Central area 1910 High density, built area, mixed land use
Via del Tintoretto Suburb 1980 Low density, not completely built area, residential
Monte Cervialto Suburb 1970 Medium density, without development plan, built area, residential
Fidene Outer suburb 1960 Low density, without development plan, not completely built area, residential
Monteverde Inner suburb 1950 High density, built area, residential
Piazza Navona Historical center Until 1600 High density, without development plan, built area, mixed land use
Porte di Roma Outer suburb Under construction Low density, not completely built area, residential
Trastevere Central area 1930 Medium density, without development plan, built area, mixed land use

and Venice in Italy. To obtain a significant sample of sites to evalu- In the case of Lucca, a town with a population of about 90,000
ate through walkability indicators, 10 zones of the city of Rome, inhabitants, the selected area was the historical center, which is com-
completely dissimilar from the pedestrians’ point of view accord- pletely surrounded by walls dating to the middle ages, for an area of
ing to a visual and qualitative analysis, were selected. In addition, about 152 ha. Venice is a city with more than 260,000 inhabitants,
the other two sites taken into consideration, the historical centers of many of whom do not live in the historical center. Venice is built on
Lucca and Venice, were analyzed because these two locations could more than 100 little islands. The area selected for the study was the
be considered as existing and effective TODs (28). Therefore, the district of San Marco, one of the six districts located in the city center,
two locations represented an important benchmark for the analysis. which has an area of about 63 ha.
The information provided by the three applications allowed the All the walkability indicators for Rome, Lucca, and Venice were
study to perform a quantitative analysis of walkable environments computed from measures of the built environment evaluated through
with the aim of ranking and comparing the sites. The results of the the geographic information system, which is a fundamental instrument
analysis enabled the study to compare some reference values pro- for obtaining and collecting objective measures of the spatial envi-
vided from studies related to the American context with data obtained ronment, in which various levels of aggregation are possible (from
from the European context, which has been much less investigated. detailed and disaggregated measurements to more aggregated ones).
The city of Rome has a population of about three million residents,
with 1.1 million employees, contributing to about 552,000 trips in
the morning peak hour. The average population density ranges from Analysis of Rome
70 inhabitants per hectare inside the city center to about six inhabit-
ants per hectare in the suburbs. Similar conditions have been recorded Starting from proximity measures, the values obtained for the PCA
for the density of activity, with values ranging from 130 employees ranged from a maximum of 78% and 77% for Piazza Mazzini and
per hectare in the city center to 1.5 employees per hectare in the Piazza Bologna, respectively, to a minimum of 31% for the Via del
suburbs (29). Tintoretto (Table 3). The minimum acceptable value of the PCA
Rome is characterized by districts with distinct urban structures, to obtain a good coverage of the area is 50% to 60% (7); six of
topology, and development. In Rome, sections of the road network the 10 analyzed areas were above this threshold. Areas that were
are characterized by their continuity and consistency and the shape of developed more recently (Fidene, Acilia, and Monte Cervialto) are
the built areas. The existence of such varied areas is explained mainly
by their development in different periods, not restricted only to the
last century, but also to a different construction process (planned by
administration or as a result of single private actions not respect- TABLE 3   PCA and MPCA in Rome
ing a development plan). This was an important aspect of the study,
which analyzed areas with very different characteristics. In fact, the Traffic
selected areas (Table 2) ranged from the city center (Piazza Navona), Area PCA (%) MPCA (%) PCA–MPCA Signals
which is characterized by compact and completely built areas with Acilia 52 48 4 1
narrow roads, to the recent suburbs of Fidene and Tintoretto, and an
Piazza Bologna 77 70 7 9
area under construction (Porte di Roma) with large and often isolated
Piazza Mazzini 78 73 5 8
buildings, large roads, and discontinuity of built areas.
The study analyzed each area of the city of Rome, considering a Via del Tintoretto 31 31 0 0
Euclidean buffer area of 500 m, starting from the center of the sites, Monte Cervialto 53 48 5 6
often representing the location of a mass rapid transit system stop. Fidene 46 46 0 0
The study also analyzed the historical centers of two other Italian Piazza Navona 63 60 3 5
cities, Lucca and Venice. In Lucca and Venice, the largest part of the Porte di Roma 49 43 6 3
trips that were studied was the walking portion. The main nodes of Monteverde 66 59 7 8
the public transport systems (train station, bus terminals, and parking Trastevere 44 33 11 10
areas) are easily accessible by walking.
42 Transportation Research Record 2464

(a) (b)

FIGURE 2   Analysis of Rome: (a) Piazza Bologna and (b) Via del Tintoretto.

at the boundary of this acceptable threshold. Values lower than 30% area of Fidene, with a quite acceptable PCA value (46%), showed the
reflect development of the area that is not pedestrian oriented. In lowest value for links of Type 2 (2.86%). For Fidene, the road network
the case of Via del Tintoretto, as shown in Figure 2b, the devel- was characterized by links with reduced width of the sections; there-
opment included long blocks and many cul-de-sacs and lacked a fore, the road network was not an obstacle for pedestrian crossing,
square where the road links could converge. This structure is com- but the general tortuosity of the paths reduced the effective use of the
pletely different from that of Piazza Bologna (Figure 2a), where the available area.
network is strictly radial, with links converging toward the center. To overcome the limitations caused by the number of links of
These two developments of the road network can be translated into Type 2 (or their percentage value) as the only indicator of walkability,
values of the PCA indicator of 31% (Via del Tintoretto) and 77% it was useful to compare the number of Type 2 links with other mea-
(Piazza Bologna). sures, such as the overall length of the Type 2 links, the density of the
As the PCA does not take into account signalized intersections, the links, and the density of the Type 2 links (Table 5). Greater length of
MPCA was also computed (Table 3). To compute the delay to cross Type 2 links would indicate in general an area with low walking acces-
a signalized intersection, the Highway Capacity Manual pedestrian sibility. But this measure (length of Type 2 links) should be related to
delay model was adopted for one-stage crossing, while the pedestrian the respective percentage value, since, assuming the same length, the
delay model developed by Wang and Tian was adopted for two-stage lower is the percentage of Type 2 links, the greater is the chance of
crossing (30). After the total delay for each pedestrian path is com- finding an alternative path that is feasible for pedestrians.
puted, the delay can be translated into a reduction of the length traveled The areas of Via del Tintoretto and Porte di Roma had 1,050 m
to obtain the MPA indicator. of Type 2 links, but there was a higher percentage in the case of Via
The observations reported for the PCA may be repeated for the del Tintoretto. The same conclusion was obtained by comparing the
MPCA, because, except in the case of Trastevere, the MPCA values lengths and the densities: Porte di Roma had a greater density of links
differ from the PCA values by less than 10%. However, the MPCA per hectare, which meant there was a greater opportunity for pedestri-
permitted better discrimination between good and poor walkability ans to find a more feasible path. The area of Piazza Bologna had the
coverage of the area. With the MPCA, only four areas could be consid-
ered up to the minimum threshold (Piazza Bologna, Piazza Mazzini,
Piazza Navona, and Monteverde) and only two of these exceed 60% in TABLE 4   Type 2 Links in Rome
their MPCA value (Piazza Bologna and Piazza Mazzini). The areas of
Piazza Bologna and Piazza Mazzini have a radial road network, con- Links Links Number Links of
verging in the center. The area of Trastevere is penalized in the MPCA Area Number (Type 2) Type 2 (%)
computation by the placement of traffic signals and it is the only area
Acilia 176 14 7.95
where there was a large difference (11%) between PCA and MPCA.
This difference was explained by the presence of many main road Piazza Bologna 88 25 28.41
crossings, in which the traffic flow was protected with green times for Piazza Mazzini 94 28 29.79
vehicles that were longer than the green times for pedestrians. Via del Tintoretto 21  6 28.57
Moving to the measures of quality (Table 4), the results seemed to Monte Cervialto 45  5 11.11
show that the areas with the greatest PCA values usually also had a Fidene 35  1 2.86
greater value of links of Type 2. So the two measures (PCA and links Piazza Navona 179 25 13.97
of Type 2) did not provide the same information about walkability. Porte di Roma 48  5 10.42
However, there were some exceptions, for example, the area of Monteverde 75 11 14.67
Via del Tintoretto. Via del Tintoretto was characterized by a low Trastevere 189 33 17.46
PCA value and by a high value for links of Type 2. Moreover, the
Gori, Nigro, and Petrelli 43

TABLE 5   Measures of Other Links

Links of Length of Links Link Density Link Density Link Density

Area Type 2 (%) of Type 2 (m) (m/ha) Type 1 (m/ha) Type 2 (m/ha)

Acilia  7.95 2,100 142.19 115.44 26.75

Piazza Bologna 28.41 1,950 164.33 139.49 24.84
Via del Tintoretto 28.57 1,050  78.98  65.61 13.38
Porte di Roma 10.42 1,050 101.91  88.54 13.38
Trastevere 17.46 2,355 143.43 113.43 30.00

same percentage of Type 2 links as Via Tintoretto had, but the density
of links in Piazza Bologna was more than twice the density of links in
Via Tintoretto. By performing a crosscheck of these indicators, it was
possible to obtain an overall view of the characterization of the area.
Pedestrian accessibility can also be measured by the number of
intersections (connectivity). Table 6 shows the number of nodes and
their density per hectare for each area. Higher values were found for
the areas of Piazza Navona and Piazza Bologna, which had a greater
number of blocks of size less than 1.5 ha.
Lower connectivity of road networks occurs in the areas with
fewer blocks or in general with high values of the size of the blocks.
For a block size equal to 2 ha, the density of intersections decreases
to 0.38 node per hectare.
Table 6 reports the α and γ measures of connectivity. The results
show different behavior of the indexes compared with the other con-
nectivity measures. Piazza Navona and Piazza Bologna have low
values of α and γ, which are close to the values obtained in the case
of Via del Tintoretto. This result led to the conclusion that the α and
γ measures were not adequate.
Therefore, the analysis of the case of Rome highlighted some
key considerations for the realization of a pedestrian-oriented area.
In particular, the computation of measures of connectivity, quality,
and proximity in various areas highlighted that in general a single
measure should not be used to describe walkability. Instead, sev-
eral measures together should be used. Some measures were only
slightly explanatory or even in contrast with what was expected. In
such cases, crosschecking with other measures may not have been
significant for the purpose of this study.
Areas that were identified as having good walkability provided
the first reference values toward adequate planning for the needs of
pedestrians.
Analysis of Lucca and Venice
Table 7 gives a summary of the main characteristics of the pedes-
trian networks in Lucca and Venice. The results show much greater
values of density at nodes and smaller block size than those found
for Rome. Values for the density of nodes and block size may repre-
sent benchmarks to which to aspire in planning a pedestrian network
to make it pedestrian friendly.
Table 7 provides information on the dimension of a TOD, by mea-
suring the distances from any node of the road network to reach three
attractor points where there are connections with the transit system.
The data obtained show that the basin may be much greater than the
usually adopted 500 m, reaching distances beyond 1 km. However,
because of the large number of nodes and links, average distances
were below 800 m.
The analyzed cases of Lucca and Venice, already known as
TODs, provided not only reference values (as in the case of Rome)
but also optimum values for the planning phase.
Summary of Results
This section will summarize the main findings of the analysis to derive
benchmark values and guidelines to be used in future developments of
pedestrian-oriented road networks.
Proximity Measures
1. The PCA is strictly correlated with the network structure:
– A development based on long blocks and cul-de-sacs gives
rise to PCA values of 30%, that is, a nonwalkable area.

TABLE 6   Connectivity Measures in Rome

Number Nodes Density Number Dimension of

Area of Nodes (nodes/ha) of Blocks Block (ha/block) α γ

Acilia 95 1.21 33 1.47 0.44 0.63

Piazza Bologna 75 0.96 63 1.25 0.10 0.40
Piazza Mazzini 58 0.74 51 1.54 0.33 0.56
Via del Tintoretto 21 0.27 11 7.14 0.03 0.37
Monte Cervialto 30 0.38 36 2.18 0.29 0.54
Fidene 22 0.28 25 3.14 0.36 0.58
Piazza Navona 163 2.08 155 0.51 0.05 0.37
Porte di Roma 32 0.41 27 2.91 0.29 0.53
Monteverde 50 0.64 50 1.57 0.27 0.52
Trastevere 101 1.29 37 1.19 0.45 0.64
44
TABLE 7   Pedestrian Network Measures and Accessibility Measures in Venice and Lucca
Number Number Nodes Density Number
Area of Nodes of Links (nodes/ha) of Blocks
Venice 348 962 5.51 144
Lucca 453 1,282 2.97 174
Note: Max. = maximum.
– A strictly radial network development, with links converg-
ing toward the center, gives rise to PCA values of 70% (high
walkability).
2. If the MPCA is adopted, a highly walkable area defined accord-
ing to the PCA can decrease by 10 points. MPCA is preferable to PCA,
since MPCA allows for a more correct evaluation of the walkability,
taking into account also delays at signalized intersections.
3. The PCA (or the MPCA) is not sufficient by itself to describe
the walkability of an area. The PCA gives only partial information
because it does not take into account the presence of adverse streets
for pedestrians (Type 2 links). The impeded PCA by Schlossberg
could resolve this limitation, but it is suggested to join the impeded
PCA with the MPCA (7).
Quality Measure
Single quality measures (such as the number of Type 2 links or their
percent value) usually cannot describe the walkability of an area.
Various quality measures need to be considered together.
Connectivity Measures
1. The dimension of blocks decreases more than linearly with the
density of nodes.
2. Measures of connectivity based on the circuit concept and
the maximum number of links in the network are not suitable for
describing walkability.
Benchmark Values
1. For the density of nodes, the minimum acceptable value reported
in the literature (0.4 nodes per hectare) cannot be considered suffi-
cient. A value of at least 0.8 to 0.9 node per hectare (areas of Piazza
Bologna and Piazza Mazzini in Rome) is desirable; areas exceeding
2.9 nodes per hectare are highly walkable (Venice and Lucca).
2. For the dimension of the blocks, it is suggested not to exceed
the value of 3 hectare per block (the average dimension for the areas
of Porte di Roma and Fidene in Rome) and, if possible, to reach val-
ues less than 1.5 to 1 hectare per block (see Lucca and Venice, but
also the central areas of Piazza Navona and Trastevere in Rome).
3. Maximum walking distance can reach on average 800 m, thus
exceeding the usual adopted value of 500 m.
Conclusions
The aim of this study was to obtain valuable guidelines and design
support to define a pedestrian-oriented development, focusing on
the analysis of walking indicators related to the structure of the road
Transportation Research Record 2464
Dimension Max. Distance Max. Distance
of Block to the Nearest to Every Average
(ha/block) Attractor (m) Attractor (m) Distance (m)
0.44 650 1,420 600
0.88 1,100 1,850 770
network. The road network is the basic skeleton of the urban pattern,
creating a set of alternatives and choices that make the paths of
pedestrians more or less attractive.
Walkability indicators derived from the literature and differenti-
ated in terms of measures of connectivity, quality, and proximity
of the road network have been computed for zones of the city of
Rome, the historical center of Lucca, and Venice in Italy. The results
reported for the case of Rome show that the number of nodes and the
size of the blocks are explanatory variables when planners are trying
to realize pedestrian-oriented development. Moreover, the cross-
ing of large roads (multilane roadways) cannot be ignored in the
computation of pedestrian indicators.
Single quality measures are not self-explanatory for describing the
walkability of an area. For example, instead of the total number (or
the percentage value) of Type 2 links, the combination of the number
of Type 2 links with other measures, such as the overall length or den-
sity of Type 2 links, can be more effective. For other measures of con-
nectivity, such as the alpha and gamma indexes based only on graph
theory, the study demonstrated their inability to describe walkability.
From the cases of Lucca and Venice, useful information was derived
to obtain benchmark values for the density of nodes (3 to 6 nodes per
hectare) and the size of blocks (0.5 to 0.9 hectare per block). More-
over, the maximum walking distance in a TOD was demonstrated to
be greater than the usually adopted 500 m, reaching a value of 800 m.
Additional research should be done to study other conditions that
can affect the desire to walk, not just the shape of the network and
the urban topology. Those conditions should include the security and
attractiveness of the landscape; the characteristics of the infrastructure,
such as the presence of bicycle lanes, the size of the sidewalks, and
the automobile accommodation values (automobile and motorcycle
parking); and the difficulty of pedestrian routes (slope of the paths,
dead end streets, and so forth). All these factors will be analyzed
in further developments of the study reported here. By taking the
perspective of the pedestrian into account in city planning, it will be
possible to reduce the use of private vehicles for short and long trips.
References
  1. Hsiao, S., J. Lu, J. Sterling, and M. Weatherford. Use of Geographic
Information System for Analysis of Transit Pedestrian Access. In Trans-
portation Research Record, No. 1604, TRB, National Research Council,
Washington, D.C., 1997, pp. 50–59.
  2. Zielstra, D., and H. H. Hochmair. Comparative Study of Pedestrian Acces-
sibility 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 Acad-
emies, Washington, D.C., 2011, pp. 145–152.
  3. Holguín-Veras, J., J. Reilly, F. Aros-Vera, W. Yushimito, and J. Isa. Park-
and-Ride Facilities in New York City: Economic Analyses of Alternative
Locations. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transpor-
tation Research Board, No. 2276, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2012, pp. 123–130.
Gori, Nigro, and Petrelli
  4. Ciaffi, F., E. Cipriani, and M. Petrelli. 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. Iacono, M., K. J. Krizek, and A. El-Geneidy. Measuring Non-Motorized
Accessibility: Issues, Alternatives, and Execution. Journal of Transport
Geography, Vol. 18, 2010, pp. 133–140.
  6. Bernick, M., and R. Cervero. Transit Villages in the 21st Century.
McGraw-Hill, New York, 1997.
  7. Schlossberg, M. From TIGER to Audit Instruments: Measuring Neigh-
borhood Walkability with Street Data Based on Geographic Information
Systems. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transpor-
tation Research Board, No. 1982, Transportation Research Board of the
National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 48–56.
  8. Øvstedal, L., and E. Ryeng. Understanding Pedestrian Comfort in Euro-
pean Cities: How to Improve Walking Conditions. Proc., European Trans-
port 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. Stonor, T., M. B. De Arruda Campos, A. Chiaradia, and S. Takamatsu.
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. Basile, O., L. Persia, and D. S. Usami. A Methodology to Assess Pedes-
trian Crossing Safety. European Transport Research Review, Vol. 2,
2010, pp. 129–137.
11. Ewing, R., and R. Cervero. Travel and the Built Environment. Journal of
the American Planning Association, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2010, pp. 265–294.
12. Manaugh, K., and A. El-Geneidy. 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. Maghelal, P. K., and C. J. Capp. Walkability: A Review of Existing
Pedestrian Indices. URISA Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, 2011, pp. 5–19.
14. Petritsch, T. A., B. W. Landis, H. F. Huang, and R. Dowling. Pedestrian
Level-of-Service Model for Arterials. In Transportation Research Record:
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 2073, Transporta-
tion Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2008,
pp. 58–68.
15. Landis, B. W., V. R. Vattikuti, R. M. Ottenberg, D. S. McLeod, and
M. Guttenplan. 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.
16. Ewing, R. Pedestrian and Transit-Friendly Design: A Primer for Smart
Growth. Smart Growth Network, Washington, D.C., 2010. http://www.
epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/ptfd_primer.pdf. Accessed Jan. 23, 2013.
45
17. Dill, J. Measuring Network Connectivity for Bicycling and Walking.
Presented at 83rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, D.C., 2004.
18. Frank, L. D., T. L. Schmid, J. F. Sallis, J. Chapman, and B. E. Saelens.
Linking Objectively Measured Physical Activity with Objectively Mea-
sured Urban Form: Findings from SMARTRAQ. American Journal of
Preventive Medicine, Vol. 28, 2005, pp. 117–125.
19. Jacobs, A. B. Great Streets. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1993.
20. Lee, C., and A. Vernez Moudon. Neighbourhood Design and Physical
Activity. Building Research and Information, Vol. 36, No. 5, 2008,
pp. 395–411.
21. Vernez Moudon, A., C. Lee, A. O. Cheadle, C. Garvin, D. Johnson, T. L.
Schmid, R. D. Weathers, and L. Lin. Operational Definitions of Walkable
Neighborhood: Theoretical and Empirical Insights. Journal of Physical
Activity and Health, Vol. 3, Supplement 1, 2006, pp. 99–117.
22. Zhang, M., and N. Kukadia. 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. Porta, S., and J. L. Renne. 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. Gori, S., M. Nigro, and M. Petrelli. Improving Accessibility to Public
Transport with Interventions on the Pedestrian Network. Vivere e cam-
minare in città − culture e tecniche per l’accessibilità, Michèle Pezzagno,
Egaf edizioni, 2003. ISBN 978-88-8482-501-8.
25. Schlossberg, M., and N. Brown. Comparing Transit-Oriented Devel-
opment Sites by Walkability Indicators. In Transportation Research
Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1887, Trans-
portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C.,
2004, pp. 34–42.
26. Ker, I., and S. Ginn. 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. Canepa, B. Bursting the Bubble: Determining the Transit-Oriented Devel-
opment’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. Calthorpe, P., and W. Fulton. The Regional City. Island Press, Washing-
ton, D.C., 2001.
29. Gori, S., M. Nigro, and M. Petrelli. The Impact of Land Use Charac-
teristics for Sustainable Mobility: The Case Study of Rome. European
Transport Research Review, Vol. 4, 2012, pp. 153–166.
30. Wang, X., and Z. Tian. 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.
The Pedestrians Committee peer-reviewed this paper.