[Link].

org
Info@[Link]
250-508-5150

Economic Value of Walkability

16 December 2024

By
Todd Litman
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Abstract
This paper describes ways to evaluate the value of walking (the activity) and walkability
(the quality of walking conditions, including safety, comfort and convenience). Walking
and walkability provide a variety of benefits, including basic mobility, consumer cost
savings, cost savings (reduced external costs), efficient land use, community livability,
improved fitness and public health, economic development, and support for equity
objectives. Current transportation planning practices tend to undervalue walking. More
comprehensive analysis techniques, described in this paper, are likely to increase public
support for walking and other nonmotorized modes of travel.

Presented at the Transportation Research Board, 82nd Annual Meeting

January 2003, Washington, DC, Paper 03-2731, where it won the TRB Committee on
Pedestrian’s 2003 Outstanding Paper Award. Published in Transportation Research Record
1828, Transportation Research Board ([Link]), 2003, pp. 3-11 and in Volume 10, Number
1, 2004, of World Transport Policy & Practice ([Link]/[Link]).

Todd Alexander Litman © 2003-2024

You are welcome and encouraged to copy, distribute, share and excerpt this document and its ideas, provided the
author is given attribution. Please send your corrections, comments and suggestions for improvement.
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Introduction
Active travel (walking, bicycling and their variants) plays important and unique roles in
an efficient transport system:
• Walking is a common human activity that provides mobility, exercise and pleasure.
• Typically 10-20% of trips are entirely by active modes and most motorized trips involve
walking and bicycling links, to access public transit and between parked vehicles and
destinations. Parking lots, terminals, airports, and commercial centers are all pedestrian
environments. Improving active travel can improve motorized transport.
• Active travel provides affordable, basic transport. Physically, economically and socially
disadvantaged people often rely on walking and cycling, so improving non-motorized
transport can help achieve social equity and economic opportunity objectives.
• Active transport is the most common form of physical exercise. Increasing walking and
bicycling is often the most practical way to improve public fitness and health.
• Active mode improvements can achieve transport planning goals including reduced
congestion, energy consumption and pollution emissions. They can also help achieve
community goals such as compact development and neighborhood livability.
• Pedestrian environments (sidewalks, paths and hallways) are a major portion of the
public realm. Many beneficial activities (socializing, waiting, shopping and eating) occur
in pedestrian environments, and so are affected by their quality. Shopping districts and
resort communities depend on walkable environments to attract customers.
• Walking and cycling are popular recreational activities. Improving walking and cycling
conditions provides enjoyment and health benefits to users, and it can support related
industries, including retail, recreation and tourism.

Conventional planning tends to assume that transport progress is linear, with newer,
faster modes replacing older, slower modes. This series model assumes that the older
modes are unimportant, and so, for example, there is no harm if faster vehicle traffic
degrades walking and bicycling conditions. From this perspective automobile travel
should be prioritized over active travel.

Walk → Bike → Train → Bus → Car → Airplane

Walk + Bike + Train + Bus + Car + Airplane
Conventional planning assumes that faster is better, so motorized modes should be prioritized
over slower but more inclusive, affordable, healthy and resource-efficient active modes.

But there is plenty of evidence that even as motorized travel increases, people continue
to walk and bicycle for both transportation and recreational purposes. In many
situations the best way to improve urban transport is to improve walking and cycling
conditions and restrict automobile travel. Although this does not increase travel speeds
it improves the overall convenience, comfort and affordability of access to destinations.

2
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Nonmotorized transportation tends to be more affordable and resource efficient than

alternative forms of transportation and recreation, as summarized in Table 1. This is not
to suggest that walking and cycling can serve every purpose, but it does highlight the
potential financial and resources savings it can provide.

Table 1 Non-motorized Transport Is Generally Cheaper Than Alternatives

Affordable and Efficient Expensive and Resource Intensive
Walk and bike for transport Own and operate an automobile
Walk and bike for exercise Join a health club
Walk and bike children to school Chauffeur children to school
Build sidewalks Build roads and parking facilities
Walking and cycling tend to be affordable compared with alternatives.

Conventional travel data tend to undercount and therefore undervalue active travel
because they often ignore short trips (those within a traffic analysis zone), non-work
travel, travel by children, recreational travel, and nonmotorized links of multimodal trips
(Litman 2003). For example, most travel surveys classify “auto-walk,” or “walk-transit-
walk” trips simply as “auto” or “transit” Walking links are often ignored even if they take
place on public rights-of-way and involve as much time as motorized links. Commonly-
cited statistics, such as census commute mode share data, indicate that less than 5% of
trips are by walking and bicycling, more comprehensive sources such as the National
Household Travel Survey indicate that about 13% of trips are actually by active modes.

Figure 1 Non-Auto Mode Shares (U.S. Census, 2017 NHTS)

15%
Public Transport Commonly-cited statistics, such as
Bike census commute mode share data,
Portion of Trips

Walk tend to undercount non-auto modes,

10%
particularly walking and bicycling
trips. More comprehensive sources,
such as the National Household Travel
5%
Survey (NHTS) indicate that walking
and bicycling trips are two to six times
more common than indicated by
0%
commute mode share data.
Commute Mode Share NHTS (all trips)

One study estimated that nonmotorized trips are six times more common than
conventional surveys indicate (Rietveld 2000). Conventional planning tends to ignore
many types of pedestrian activity such as people sitting or waiting on sidewalks (Haze
2000). If instead of asking, “What portion of trips only involve walking,” we ask, “What
portion of trips involves some walking,” walking would be recognized as a common and
important mode.

3
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

This tendency to undervalue nonmotorized travel can be particularly harmful because

transportation decisions often involve tradeoffs between different travel modes (Litman
2003b). Wide roads, high traffic speeds and large parking facilities create barriers to
walking, so evaluation practices that undervalue walking tend to create automobile
dependent communities (“Evaluating Nonmotorized Transportation,” VTPI 2008).

Transportation agencies use standard ways to evaluate transportation improvements.

Their economic analysis is dominated by travel time savings. This favors faster modes,
such as automobile travel, over slower active modes. For example, it justifies roadway
expansion projects even if wider roads and higher speed traffic increase pedestrian and
bicycling delay. This undervaluation of slower modes:
• Shifts resources from walking facilities to roads and parking.
• Favors automobile-oriented land use patterns (wide roads, generous parking, low
density, single-use) over pedestrian-oriented development.
• Undervalues traffic management practices that support walking, such as traffic calming.
• Undervalues pedestrian safety investments.

To their credit, many transportation professionals support active modes; they intuitively
realize that walking and bicycling play important roles in an efficient and equitable
transportation system. However, this occurs despite, rather than as a result of,
conventional transportation survey data and evaluation methods.

This is a timely issue because there is increased recognition of the benefits of

transportation diversity (Litman 2001a), and support for creating more walkable
communities. Better tools for evaluating walkability can help with many transportation
and land use planning decisions (Sælensminde 2002; Litman 2002).

This paper investigates the value of walking (the activity) and walkability (the quality of
walking conditions, including factors such as the existence of walking facilities and the
degree of walking safety, comfort and convenience). It identifies categories of economic
benefits, describes how they can be measured, and the degree to which these are
reflected in current transportation and land use planning. This paper can only provide a
general review of these issues – more research is needed to create practical tools that
can be used by transport planners to quantify the full benefits of walkability.

Most analysis in this paper applies to any form of nonmotorized transportation,

including cycling and skating and wheelchair use. For simplicity I use the term “walking”
and “walkability”, but readers may wish to substitute “nonmotorized travel” and
“nonmotorized travel conditions” to be more inclusive.

4
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

How Walking Is Undervalued

Conventional planning tends to undervalue active modes in the following ways:

Difficult to Measure
Walking and walkability are more difficult to evaluate than motorized travel. Travel
surveys tend to undercount walking and bicycling trips, and most communities have
little data on the extent and quality of sidewalks, crosswalks and bikeways. Most
travel models give little consideration to active travel.

Low Status
Walking is generally considered a lower status activity compared with motorized
travel. Civic leaders and transportation professionals generally prefer to be
associated with improvements to air travel, driving conditions, and major transit
service, since they are perceived as more important. Because it is used by lower-
income people, walking tends to be stigmatized while motorized transport tends to
be associated with success and progress.

Low Cost
Walking tends to be overlooked because it is so affordable. As a result there is no
organized walking industry and little dedicated funding. Improved walkability can
provide consumer cost savings, but such avoided costs are difficult to predict and
are often given little consideration.

Benefits Ignored
Conventional planning tends to ignore or undervalue benefits such as fitness and
public health benefits of active transportation, enjoyment of walking and cycling,
and improved mobility options for non-drivers. The role that nonmotorized travel
plays in supporting public transit and rideshare travel is often overlooked. Many
transportation economic evaluation models even ignore benefits such as reduced
congestion, parking cost savings and consumer cost savings that result when travel
shifts from driving to nonmotorized modes.

Taken For Granted (“It Will Take Care of Itself”)

Decision-makers often take walking for granted and assume that it can take care of
itself (Goodman and Tolley 2003). For example, it is possible to walk along roads that
lack sidewalks, either in the roadway or on dirt paths that develop along road
shoulders. As a result, walk and cycling facilities are often given low priority. Such
insensitivity to walking conditions is misplaced: areas with poor walkability tend to
have significantly less walking and more driving than more walkable areas.

5
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Categories of Economic Impacts

Economics refers to the allocation of valuable resources. This can include both market
resources (money, labor and land) and nonmarket resources (safety, clean air, wildlife
habitat and aesthetic features). Economic impacts refers to benefits and costs, that is,
an increase or reduction in resource value.

This section describes major categories of economic impacts associated with walking,
the degree to which they are recognized in current transport evaluation, and how they
can be evaluated (Litman 2002a; “TDM Evaluation,” VTPI 2008; Litman 2009). The Active
Transport Quantification Tool (ICLEI 2007) provides a methodology for valuing the active
transportation benefits, including savings from avoided driving, increased happiness,
and reductions in coronary heart disease, diabetes risk, congestion, pollution and crash
risk. The report, Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs (Litman 2004b) provides
similar analysis for transit economic evaluation, which provides a model and useful
information for evaluating non-motorized transportation.

Accessibility
Accessibility (or just Access) refers to the ability to reach desired goods, services and
activities (Litman 2003b). Walking is an important form of access, both by itself and in
conjunction with other modes (transit, driving, air travel, etc.). Walking provides basic
mobility, that is, many people rely on walking to access activities with high social value,
such as medical services, essential errands, education and employment (“Basic
Mobility,” VTPI 2008). It is particularly important for people who are transportation
disadvantaged (people with disabilities, elders, children, and people with low incomes).
Poor walking conditions can contribute to social exclusion, that is, the physical,
economic and social isolation of vulnerable populations. Pedestrian access to public
transit is an important accessibility factor.

Evaluation Methods
Several methods can be used to evaluate walkability, taking into account the quality of
pedestrian conditions and the geographic distribution of destinations (FDOT 2002;
“Evaluating Nonmotorized Transportation,” VTPI 2008). Accessibility can be evaluated
using resident surveys, field surveys and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) to
determine the portion of important destinations (medical services, shops, schools, jobs,
government offices, etc.) that can be conveniently reached by walking or walk-transit-
trips, particularly by disadvantaged populations. The value of marginal changes in
walking conditions can be quantified using contingent valuation surveys to determine
the value people place on improved pedestrian accessibility, and cost savings compared
with other access options (such as driving).

6
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Consumer Cost Savings

Walkability affects consumer transport costs. Improved walkability allows consumers to
save on vehicle expenses (“Affordability,” VTPI 2008). For example, one study found that
households in automobile-dependent communities devote 50% more to transportation
(more than $8,500 annually) than households in communities with more accessible land
use and more multi-modal transportation systems (less than $5,500 annually) (McCann
2000).

Evaluation Methods
Consumer savings from improved walkability can be evaluated based on potential
transportation cost savings. For example, walkability improvements that allow more
people to walk or ride transit, rather than drive, can reduce vehicle ownership and
operating costs.

At a minimum, shifting reduced driving saves fuel and oil, which typically total about 10-
15¢ per vehicle-mile reduced, and more under congested conditions. Vehicle operating
cost savings can be particularly large because walking tends to substitute for short trips
when vehicle engines are cold, during which they are less efficient. In addition,
depreciation, insurance and parking costs are partly variable, since increased driving
increases the frequency of vehicle repairs and replacement, reduces vehicle resale
value, and increases the risks of crashes, traffic and parking citations. These additional
mileage-related costs typically average 10-15¢ per mile, so cost savings total 20-25¢ per
mile reduced. Savings are greater if improved travel options allow a household to own
fewer vehicles. Potential savings are summarized in the table below.

Table 2 Potential Vehicle Cost Savings (“Vehicle Costs,” VTPI 2008)

Category Description How It Can Be Measured Typical Values
Vehicle Per-mile costs times mileage 10-15¢ per vehicle-mile.
Operating Costs Fuel, oil and tire wear. reduced. Higher in congestion.
Long-Term Mileage-related depreciation,
Mileage- mileage lease fees, user costs Per-mile costs times mileage
Related Costs from crashes and tickets. reduced. 10¢ per vehicle-mile.
Tolls, parking fees, Parking
Special Costs Cash Out, PAYD insurance. Specific market conditions. Varies.
Vehicle Reductions in fixed vehicle Reduced vehicle ownership
Ownership costs. times vehicle ownership costs. $3,000 per vehicle-year.
Reductions in residential Reduced vehicle ownership
Residential parking costs due to reduced times savings per reduced $100-1,200 per vehicle-
Parking vehicle ownership. residential parking space. year.
Reducing automobile travel can provide a variety of consumer savings. (2001 U.S. dollars).

The “Vehicle Costs” chapter of Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis (Litman 2009)
provides information on potential cost savings.

7
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Public Cost Savings (Reduced Transport Externalities)

Motor vehicle use imposes various public costs for road and parking facilities, traffic
congestion, crash risk, and environmental damages (Murphy and Delucchi 1998; Litman
2010). Shifting travel from motorized to non-motorized modes reduces these external
costs. Walking substitutes for relatively short vehicle trips, which tend to have high costs
per vehicle-mile. In particular, energy consumption and pollution emissions are several
times higher than average for short trips when engines are cold, and parking costs are
high when measured per vehicle-mile, since these costs are divided into few miles. A
short walking trip often substitutes for a longer motor vehicle trip. As a result, each
percentage shift of vehicle trips to walking can reduce transport external costs by
several percentage points, particularly under urban-peak conditions when emission and
parking costs are high.

Evaluation Methods
A variety of methods are used to calculate the external cost savings that result when
travel shifts from driving to non-motorized modes (Litman 2009). Figure 1 illustrates one
comparison of the estimated external costs of driving and walking. Shifting travel from
driving to walking can help reduce various external costs, providing savings estimated to
average approximately 25¢ per vehicle-mile reduced, and 50¢ per vehicle-mile reduced
under urban-peak conditions.

Figure 2 Estimated External Costs of Automobile Travel and Walking (Litman 2009)
$0.16

Automobile - Urban Peak

US Dollars Per Passenger-Mile

$0.12
Automobile - Average
Walk

$0.08

$0.04

$0.00

This figure compares the estimated external costs of automobile and pedestrian travel. Shifting
from driving to walking provides savings averaging approximately 25¢ per vehicle-mile reduced,
and 50¢ per vehicle-mile reduced under urban-peak conditions.

8
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Land Use Efficiency

Low-density development with large amounts of land paved for roads and parking
imposes various economic, social and environmental costs (Appleyard 1981; Burchell
1998; Litman 2002; “Land Use Evaluation,” VTPI 2008; USEPA 2001). Walkability
improvements can help reduce these costs by reducing the amount of land required for
transport facilities and encouraging more accessible, clustered land use patterns, and
supporting Smart Growth development patterns (Ewing, Pendall and Chen 2002; “Smart
Growth,” VTPI 2008). This provides economic, social and environmental benefits.

Evaluation Methods
There are many factors to consider when evaluating the impacts of transportation
decisions on land use patterns. Evaluating these impacts requires:
1. An understanding of how transportation in general, and walkability in particular, affect land
use patterns (Litman 2002). Compared with driving, walking requires far less space for travel
and parking, does not require building setbacks to mitigate traffic noise, and encourages
more clustered development patterns. As a result, walkable communities can devote less
land to pavement and tend to result in higher development densities than is common with
more automobile-oriented transport systems, reducing per capita land consumption.
2. An understanding of the economic impacts of different types of land use patterns, including
the economic, social and environmental benefits from reduced impervious surface (Arnold
and Gibbons 1998) and more clustered development patterns (Burchell, et al. 1998). The
table below summarizes various land use benefits from improved walkability. Not every
walkability improvement provides every one of these benefits, but in general, a more
walkable community will achieve most of them.

Table 3 Land Use Benefits of Improved Walkability

Economic Social Environmental
Improved accessibility, particularly for
non-drivers.
Reduced transportation costs.
Improved accessibility for people
Increased parking efficiency (parking who are transport disadvantaged.
facilities can serve more destinations).
Reduced external transportation Reduced land needed for
Can increase local business activity and costs (crash risk, pollution, etc.). roads and parking facilities.
employment.
Increased neighborhood Openspace preservation.
Support for transit and other interaction and community
Reduced energy consumption
alternative modes. cohesion.
and pollution emissions.
Special support for some businesses, Improved opportunities to
Improved aesthetics.
such as walking tourism. preserve cultural resources (e.g.,
historic buildings). Reduced water pollution.
Healthcare savings from improved
exercise. Increased exercise. Reduced “heat island” effects.
This table summarizes various benefits from a more walkable community.

9
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Community Livability and Cohesion

Description
Community Livability refers to the environmental and social quality of an area as
perceived by residents, employees and visitors (Weissman and Corbett 1992;
“Livability,” VTPI 2008). Community cohesion (also called social capital) refers to the
quality of relationships among people in a community, as indicated by the frequency of
positive interactions, the number of neighborhood friends and acquaintances, and their
sense of community connections, particularly among people of different economic
classes and social backgrounds (Forkenbrock and Weisbrod, 2001). These are valuable
themselves and can provide indirect benefits including increased safety and health, and
increased property values and economic development (CTE 2007; Litman 2011).

Walkability has major impacts on community livability. Streets are a major portion of
the public realm, that is, places where people interact with their community. More
attractive, safe and walkable streets increase community livability (Forkenbrock and
Weisbrod 2001). Residents on streets with higher traffic volumes and speeds are less
likely to know their neighbors, and show less concern for their local environment, than
residents on streets with less vehicle traffic (Appleyard 1981).

Evaluation Methods
Community livability and cohesion provide various direct and indirect benefits. It can
affect property values and business activity in an area, which can be measured with
various techniques such as hedonic pricing and contingent valuation (LGC 2001; Litman
2009). This may not reflect total livability benefits, since benefits to non-residents are
not necessarily reflected in property values. The value of walkability varies, depending
on several factors:
• Pedestrian-friendly, new urbanist community design tends to increase property
values (Eppli and Tu 2000).
• In automobile dependent areas, sidewalks may have little effect on adjacent
property values.
• Reduced vehicle traffic can increase adjacent property values, in part, because it
improves walking safety and comfort (Bagby 1980).
• Proximity to public trails often increases residential and commercial property values
(NBPC 1995).

To the degree that improved walkability increases community cohesion, it may help
reduce crime and other social problems in an area (Litman 2002). However, such
relationships are difficult to measure and walkability is just one of many related factors
that affects community cohesion.

10
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Health
Physical Activity refers to physical exercise. Inadequate physical activity is a major
contributor to health problems (Litman 2004). Health experts recommend at least 30
minutes of moderate exercise a day, at least 5 days a week, in intervals of ten-minutes
or more (Surgeon General 1999).

Diseases Associated With Physical Inactivity (Killingsworth and Lamming 2001)

• Heart disease • Obesity
• Hypertension • Osteoporosis
• Stroke • Depression and dementia
• Diabetes • Some types of cancer

An increasing portion of the population, including many children, lack regular physical
activity. Although there are many ways to be physically active, walking is one of the
most practical ways to increase physical activity among a broad population. Walking
tends to be particularly important for elderly, disabled and lower-income people who
have few opportunities to participate in sports or formal exercise programs. Health
experts believe that more balanced transportation systems can contribute to improved
public health by accommodating and encouraging active transport (Sallis, et al. 2004;
Bassett, et al. 2008).

A few published studies have quantified the health benefits of transport and land use
planning decisions that increase physical activity (“Safety and Health,” Litman 2009).
Boarnet, Greenwald and McMillan (2008) develop a framework for quantifying the value
of reduced mortality from urban design improvements that increase walking activity.
The table below summarizes the estimated benefits of various changes in neighborhood
walkability factors from a median to the seventy-fifth (lower value) and ninety-fifth
(higher value) percentile, for example, if the number of intersections within ½ mile
increased by 0.3816 (lower value) or 1.1844 (higher value), for a hypothetical 5,000
resident neighborhood. A detailed study found that women who live in more walkable
New York neighborhoods have significantly lower risk of obesity-related cancers. (India-
Aldana, et al. 2023).

Table 4 Health Benefits Neighborhood Walkability (Boarnet, Greenwald and McMillan 2008)
Neighborhood Walkability Total Benefits Per Capita Benefits
Changes Lower Higher Lower Higher
Increase number of intersections within ½ mile $2,255,107 $23,205,007 $451 $4,641
Increased retail employment density $466,574 $18,331,955 $93 $3,666
Increased employment density $155,525 $19,492,206 $31 $3,898
Increased Population density $1,555,247 $8,353,802 $311 $1,671
Distance from central business district $4,510,215 $61,725,318 $902 $12,345
This table summarizes estimated value of health benefits from neighborhood design changes
that increase walking. “Lower” and “Higher” values indicate results of various assumptions.

11
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Of people with safe places to walk within ten minutes of home, 43% achieve
recommended activity levels, compared with just 27% of those who lack safe places to
walk (ECU 2004b). Tomalty and Haider (2009) evaluated how community design factors
(density and mix, street connectivity, sidewalk supply, street widths, block lengths, etc.)
and a subjective Walkability Index rating (based on residents' evaluations) affect walking
and biking activity, and health outcomes in 16 diverse neighborhoods. The analysis
reveals a statistically significant association between improved walkability and more
walking and cycling activity, lower body mass index (BMI), and lower hypertension.
Regression analysis indicates that people living in more walkable neighbourhoods are
more likely to walk for at least 10 daily minutes and are less likely to be obese than
those living in less walkable areas, regardless of age, income or gender.

Stokes, MacDonald and Ridgeway (2008) developed a model to quantify public health
cost savings from a new light rail transit system in Charlotte, NC. Using estimates of
future riders, the effects of public transit on physical activity (daily walking to and from
the transit stations), and area obesity rates they estimate the potential yearly public
health cost savings from this project. They estimate that the light rail system would
provide cumulative public health cost savings of $12.6 million over nine years. Land
Transport New Zealand’s Economic Evaluation Manual (EEM) provides monetary values
for the health benefits of active transportation resulting from both TDM measures and
active transportation infrastructure (LTNZ 2010). It assumes that half of the benefit is
internal to the people who increase their activity level by walking or cycling, and half are
external benefits to society such as hospital cost savings. The values for cyclists and
pedestrians are shown in the table below.

Table 5 Active Transportation Health Benefits (LTNZ 2010)

Internal External 2007 USD/mile
low 0.05 0.05 0.10
Cycling mid 0.10 0.10 0.19
high 0.19 0.19 0.38
low 0.12 0.12 0.24
Walking mid 0.24 0.24 0.48
high 0.48 0.48 0.96
These values reflect the health benefits of increased walking and cycling for economic analysis.

Walking has a relatively high crash fatality rate per mile of travel, but this is offset by
reduced risk to other road users and by the fact that pedestrians tend to travel less
overall than motorists (for example, a walking trip to a local store often substitutes for a
longer car trip to a more distant shopping center). International research suggests that
shifts to nonmotorized transport increases road safety overall (Litman and Fitzroy 2005;
“Safety Evaluation,” VTPI 2008). For example, the Netherlands has a high level of
nonmotorized transport, yet per capita traffic deaths and the cyclist death rate per
million km ridden is much lower than in more automobile dependent countries (Pucher
and Dijkstra 2000).

12
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

London School of Economics researchers estimate that physical inactivity is, by far, the
largest cost of automobile travel, and increased physical fitness and health is the largest
benefit of active travel, as illustrated in the following graph.

Figure 3 Social Costs of Car Travel in 2022 prices (van den Bijgaart, et al. 2023)

The health costs of physical

inactivity are by far the largest
social cost from car use, and
the health benefits of physical
exercise tend to be the largest
benefit of improving and
increasing active travel.

Evaluation Methods
Public surveys can be used to determine the degree that people in an area rely on
walking for exercise, and the degree to which improved walkability would increase
physical activity by otherwise sedentary people (Boarnet, Greenwald and McMillan
2008). The “Safety and Health” chapter of Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis
(Litman 2009) contains more information on methods for quantifying these benefits.

Economic Development
Economic Development refers to progress toward a community’s economic goals,
including increases in economic productivity, employment, business activity and
investment (Litman 2011). Walkability can affect economic development in several ways
(LGC 2001; Leinberger and Alfonzo 2012).

Tolley (2011) evaluated the impacts on to retailers and local residents from improving
commercial street walking and cycling conditions. He found that streetscape
enhancements that improve walking and cycling conditions tend to increase property
values and rents, attract new businesses, and increase local economic activity. Analyzing
bicycle and automobile parking space requirements he concluded that bicycle parking
can produce much higher levels of retail spend than the same space devoted to car
parking. He also concluded that a large proportion of retail expenditure comes from
local residents and workers, many of whom walk or bicycle, in contrast to car-borne
customers who are more likely to be “drive-through” shoppers, stopping to pick up one
item on the way to another destination.

13
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

The New York City Department of Transportation includes indicators of economic vitality
(sales tax receipts, commercial vacancies, number of visitors) when evaluating street
redesigns that add walking, cycling and public transit facilities, change traffic speeds or
change vehicle parking conditions (NYCDOT 2013). In several examples, walking, cycling
and public transit improvements have improved economic performance:
• Establishing bike paths on 8th and 9th Avenues in Manhattan increased local
business retail sales up to 49% compared with 3% borough-wide.
• Expanding walking facilities in Union Square North (Manhattan) reduced commercial
vacancies 49%, compared to a 5% increase borough-wide.
• Converting an underused parking lot into a public park on Pearl Street (Brooklyn)
increased nearby retail sales volumes by 172%, compared to 18% borough-wide.
• Converting a curb lane into a public seating area on Pearl Street (Manhattan)
increased sales volumes at adjacent businesses by 14%.
• Establishing a bus lane and other bus transit improvements on Fordham Road
(Bronx) increased nearby retail sales 71% compared to 23% borough-wide.
• Developing bus- and bike-lanes on First and Second Avenue reduced commercial
vacancy rates 47%, compared with 2% borough-wide.

Pedestrian-friendly commercial districts (“Mainstreets”) can be important for urban

revitalization (Bohl 2002; “Downtowns,” VTPI 2008). Research by Hack (2013) indicates
that walkable shopping areas are often economically successful, improved walkability
tends to increase commercial and residential land values, many want to live within
walking distances of commercial services, and that current market trends are likely to
increase demand for walkable shopping districts.

People often overestimate the importance of shoppers motor vehicle access, and
therefore vehicle parking, and underestimate the value of access by walking, cycling and
public transport. For example, a survey of customers at New York City shopping street
found that a minority drive, and that shifting street space from vehicle parking to
pedestrians would likely increase total business activity in the area. Shoppers who value
wider sidewalks over parking spent about five times as much money, in the aggregate,
as those who value parking over sidewalks (Schaller Consulting 2006).

Rowe (2013) used retail sales data (based on sales tax receipts) to analyze the impacts that
development of bike lanes, and the resulting loss of some on-street parking spaces, had on
local business districts in Seattle, Washington neighborhoods. The results indicated
substantial (up to 400%) increases in sales volumes after bicycle lane installation.

Another study (Sztabinski 2009) examined the impacts of proposed bike lanes on
retailers along Toronto, Canada’s Bloor Street. The analysis indicated that expanding

14
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

sidewalks, and adding bicycle and bus lanes tends to support local economic
development, even if it reduces on-street parking. It found that:
• 90% of customers walk, bike or travel by public transit to shops.
• Even during peak periods no more than about 80% of metered parking spaces on the
street are occupied.
• Although customers who arrive by automobile spend more per trip on average,
customers who arrive by foot and bicycle visit the most often and spend most per
month on average.
• More merchants who believe that a bike lane or widened sidewalk would increase
business than merchants who think those changes would reduce business.
• The loss of on-street parking required for a bike lane or wider sidewalks could easily
be accommodated in nearby off-street parking lots.

A study of consumer expenditures in British towns found that customers who walk
spend more per week than those who drive, and transit and car travelers spend similar
amounts.

Table 6 Consumer Expenditure by Mode (Accent Marketing & Research)

Mode Weekly Expenditures
Bus £63
Car £64
On foot £91
Train/tube £46
Other (taxi, cycle...) £56
This survey found higher weekly expenditures by consumers who travel by walking than those
who drive or rider transit to downtown shopping districts in the UK.

Expenditures on fuel and vehicles tend to provide relatively little employment and
business activity compared with other common consumer expenditures (“TDM and
Economic Development,” VTPI 2008; Litman, 2004b). Walking that substitutes for
driving, and therefore reduces fuel consumption and dependency on fuel and vehicles
imported from other regions tends to provide economic development benefits.

Evaluation Methods
Walkability can affect economic development in several ways, each must be considered
separately (Litman 2002). Market surveys and property assessments can be used to
identify how walkability factors affect commercial activity (such as retail sales),
consumer satisfaction, competitiveness, employment, tax revenue, and property values
in an affected area. Economic analysis techniques using input-output tables can be used
to determine how changes in consumer expenditures affect regional employment and
business activity (Weisbrod 2000).

15
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Economic Opportunity and Resilience

Gilderbloom, Riggs and Meares (2015), and Won, Chanam and Li (2017) indicate that
more walkable neighborhoods have lower housing foreclosure rates.

Social Equity
Equity refers to the distribution of resources and opportunities. Transport decisions can
affect equity in various ways. There are several different equity issues, including
horizontal equity (which assumes that people should generally be treated equally), and
vertical equity (which assumes that society should provide extra support to
disadvantaged people) (Litman 2001). Walkability can help achieve various equity
objectives including a fair distribution of public resources to non-drivers, financial
savings and improved opportunity for people who are physically and economically
disadvantaged, and basic mobility.

Evaluation Methods
Because there are different types of equity, several factors should be considered when
evaluating transportation equity impacts. The table below describes five equity
indicators that can be used to evaluate the overall equity impacts of changes in
walkability.

Table 7 Equity Summary (“Equity Evaluation,” VTPI 2008)

Indicator Description
Treats everybody equally. This reflects whether a policy treats each group or individual equally.
Individuals bear the costs This reflects the degree to which user charges reflect the full costs of a
they impose transportation activity.
Progressive with respect This reflects whether a policy makes lower-income households better or
to income worse off.
Benefits transportation Whether a policy makes people who are transportation disadvantaged
disadvantaged better off by increasing their options or providing financial savings.
Improves basic mobility This reflects whether a policy favors more important transport (emergency
and access response, commuting, basic shopping) over less important transport.
This table describes five indicators of transportation equity that can be used when evaluating
walkability equity impacts.

The most practical approach to evaluating equity impacts is to define equity objectives
and performance indicators, and then evaluate the degree to which a particular policy
or project helps achieve them (“Transportation Planning,” VTPI 2008). Equity benefits
are difficult to monetize (there is no easy way to add equity benefits to other benefits
such as vehicle cost savings or increased property values), but most communities seem
to place a high value on achieving equity objectives (Forkenbrock and Weisbrod 2001).

16
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Summary of Economic Impacts

Table 10 summarizes the categories of economic benefits described above that should
be considered when evaluating walking. In most situations, several impacts should be
considered, with results added to determine total benefits. For example, a particular
walkability improvement may improve accessibility, provide consumer cost savings,
increase community livability (and therefore local property values), improve public
fitness and health, benefit the local economy (increasing employment, tax revenue and
property values), and support strategic land use and equity objectives. The project’s full
value is the sum of these individual benefits.

Table 8 Walkability Economic Impacts

Name Description Measuring Techniques
Accessibility Degree that walking provides mobility Travel modeling, analysis of travel
options, particularly for people who are options.
transportation disadvantaged.
Consumer cost Degree to which walking provides Consumer expenditure surveys
savings consumer transportation cost savings.
Public cost savings Degree that walking substitutes for vehicle Determine to what degree walking
(reduced external travel and reduces negative impacts. reduces motor vehicle travel, and
costs) the economic savings that result.
Efficient land use Degree that walking helps reduce the Identify the full economic, social
amount of land used for roadway and and environmental benefits of
parking facilities, and helps create more more pedestrian-oriented land
accessible, clustered land use. use.
Livability Degree that walking improves the local Property values, business
environment. activities, consumer preference
surveys.
Public fitness and Degree that walking provides physical Travel and health surveys to
health exercise to people who are otherwise determine the number of people
sedentary. who benefit from walking
exercise.
Economic Degree to which walking makes commercial Market surveys and property
development areas more attractive and shifts consumer assessments. Input-output table
expenditures to goods that provide more analysis.
regional economic activity and
employment.
Equity Degree that walkability helps achieve Various indicators of horizontal
various equity objectives. and vertical equity.
This table summarizes various categories of impacts to consider when evaluating walking.

17
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Planning Applications
The value of walkability can be incorporated into transport planning decisions in various ways,
reflecting various perspectives and assumptions. Three approaches are described below.

Proportional Share
Transportation fairness and efficiency can be evaluated based on the degree that public
resources (money, road space, planning priority, etc.) reflect a mode’s share of travel
demands (Litman 2022). For example, if travellers would like to make 10% of their trips
by active modes, they should receive up to 10% of public resources, or more if justified
to achieve strategic goals or to make up for previous underinvestment.

According to the National Household Travel Survey about 13% of U.S. trips are made
active modes, with increased rates where walking and bicycling conditions are
improved, indicating latent demands (travellers would like to walk and bicycle, but
cannot due to underinvestment). Although walking and bicycling trips tend to be shorter
than motorized mode trips, and so represents a smaller portion of person-mileage, a
shorter active mode trip often substitutes for a longer automobile trip. For example,
consumers may choose between walking to a nearby store or driving to a regional
shopping center. There is no obvious reason that society should subsidize automobile
trips and motorists at a greater rate than walking trips and non-drivers.

North American communities typically spend about $50 annually per capita on
sidewalks and bikeways, a tiny amount compared with expenditures on public transit,
roads and government-mandated parking facilities. This represents less than 5% of
public spending on transportation infrastructure, which is a much smaller than the
portion of total trips currently made by active modes, or the portion of trips that could
be made by these modes if they received more investment and support.

Figure 4 Non-Auto Demand Indicators (Litman 2024)

60%
At least 3 non-auto trips per week Active travel is
Portion of Trips or Travelers

50% approximately 4% of
Bike commute trips, 13% of
40% total personal trips,
Walk 20% of traffic deaths,
30% a third of urban trips if
their conditions are
20%
improved. About half
10% of all travelers use
non-auto modes at
0% least three times per
Commute Total Traffic Potential Potential Frequent week.
Trips Trips Deaths Trips Urban Trips Users

18
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

There are several reasons that walkability improvements might deserve more than a
proportional share of transportation resources:
• As described earlier, walking provides basic mobility and serves trips with high social
value.
• Walking is particularly important for people who are transportation disadvantaged.
Walkability improvements provide equity benefits, and bear special costs associated
with serving people with disabilities.
• Some walking facility improvements can be included in other transport budgets (e.g.,
transit facilities, airports, parking facilities, ferry terminals, etc.) because they serve
these modes.
• Walking provides both transportation and recreation benefits. It therefore deserves
funding from both transportation and recreation budgets. For example, it may be
appropriate to devote 10% of a jurisdiction’s transportation budget and 20% of its
recreation budget to pedestrian facilities.

If we apply the principle that each mode should receive its proportional share of
transportation resources, this suggests that walking should receive 10-20% of total
transportation resources (not just municipal transport agency funds), five to ten times
what is currently devoted to walking facilities and services, in addition to a significant
share of recreational funding.

Cost Allocation
Transportation cost allocation evaluates to what degree each user group pays its share
of transportation facilities and services through special user charges such as road tolls,
fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees (FHWA 1997; Litman 2009). This reflects the
principles of horizontal equity (consumers should pay for what they get and get what
they pay for unless a subsidy is specifically justified), and economic efficiency (prices
should equal marginal costs) (“Market Principles,” VTPI 2008).

Many people assume that because motorists pay fuel taxes and other roadway fees,
nonmotorized modes underpay their fair share of transportation costs. This is not
necessarily true. Although vehicle use fees fund major highways, local roads are funded
through general taxes that residents pay regardless of how they travel, and motor
vehicles impose other public costs besides roadway expenditures. An average
household pays several hundred dollars annually in general taxes for local roads and
traffic services, and pays hundreds of dollars in parking subsidies. When all impacts are
considered, motorists generally underpay their share of costs, while walking receives
less than its fair share of resources (Litman 2005; Litman 2009). The example below
illustrates this point.

19
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Example
Two neighbors each pay $300 annually in local taxes that fund transport facilities and
services. Mike drives 10,000 miles annually on local roads, while Frances walks 3,000
miles. The table below compares their tax payments and transportation costs.

Table 12 Local Transportation Payments and Costs

Mike Frances
A. Annual local mileage 10,000 3,000
B. Household’s general taxes used for road related services. $300 $300
C. Motorist user fees spent on local road (0.2¢ per mile). $24 $0
D. Total road system contribution (B + C) $324 $300
E. Tax payment per mile of travel (B/A). 3.2¢ 10¢
F. Roadway costs (cars = 5¢/ml, walking = 0.2¢/ml) $500 $48
Net (D – F) Underpays $176 Overpays $252
Non-drivers pay almost as much as motorists for local transportation facilities and services, but
impose lower costs. As a result, they tend to overpay their fair share.

Although an average household pays its share of transport taxes, those who drive less
than average subsidize their neighbors who drive more than average. These subsidies
can be significant, totaling hundreds of dollars annually for somebody who relies
primarily on nonmotorized transport. These cross subsidies are far greater when other
external motor vehicle costs are also considered, such as public resources devoted to
parking facilities, uncompensated crash damages, and environmental damages (Litman,
2009).

This suggests that applying cost allocation principles, motorists should pay significantly
more than they currently do in user fees, and more resources should be devoted to
nonmotorized transport facilities or nondrivers should receive tax discounts (“Market
Reforms,” VTPI 2008).

Benefit-Cost Analysis
A third approach to evaluating transportation policies and programs, and the approach
that is considered best for maximizing efficiency, is benefit-cost analysis (Litman 2001b).
This compares the incremental costs and benefits of a policy or project.

Benefit-cost analysis is applied to individual policies and projects, so it is difficult to

make broad conclusions as to what effect its application would have on transport
decision making. However, for reasons described below, it is likely that more rigorous
application of benefit-cost analysis would tend to increase the resources devoted to
walking.
• As described earlier, current transportation planning practices tend to undercount
walking. Better counting of walking trips will tend to recognize more demand, and
therefore greater potential benefits from walkability improvements.

20
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

• Few economic analyses account for the full range of benefits from improved
walkability and increased walking described in this paper. More comprehensive
analysis is likely to identify greater benefits and so justify greater investments.
• Only recently have nonmotorized evaluation tools been developed, such as pedestrian
level-of-service rating. Applying such tools can improve our ability to predict how a
particular policy or project will affect nonmotorized travel, which can justify greater
investments in walkability.
• There is increasing recognition of the diminishing economic benefits from increased
highway investments (Boarnet and Haughwout, 2000; “TDM and Economic
Development,” VTPI 2008), the significant social costs of automobile dependency, and
the large potential social benefits of a more diverse transportation system (Litman,
2001a).
• There is increasing recognition of the value of smart growth land use management to
achieve social objectives (“Smart Growth,” VTPI 2008). These strategies place a high
value on walkability.
• Current transportation funding is biased against nonmotorized modes. Only a small
portion of total transport funds may be used for nonmotorized facilities, and financial
match requirements are sometimes higher. More neutral investment policies would
increase the amount of money available for walking.

More comprehensive benefit-cost analysis requires better techniques to measure and

predict travel impacts of improved walkability, and to evaluate the full economic
impacts that result, including indirect and nonmarket impacts that are not usually
quantified in transport planning such as environmental, economic development and
equity impacts.

21
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Examples
The study, Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Housing Values in U.S. Cities, by
Joseph Cortright (2009) found that improved walkability tends to increase home values.
It analyzed 94,000 residential real estate transactions in 15 major U.S. markets to
evaluate how various factors affect sale values, including conventional factors such as
size, number of bedrooms and bathrooms, age, neighborhood income, distance from
Central Business District, and access to jobs, plus Walk Score ([Link]),
which calculates proximity to amenities (restaurants, coffee shops, schools, parks,
stores, libraries, etc.) and assigns a rating from 0 (least walkable) to 100 (most
walkable). Walk Scores of 70+ indicate neighborhoods where it’s possible to get by
without a car.

The study found that a one-point Walk Score increase is typically associated with an
increase of $700 to $3,000 in house values, depending on the market. Shifting from
average to above-average Walk Scores typically increased a home’s value by $4,000 to
$34,000, depending on the metro area. The gains were larger in denser, urban areas like
Chicago and San Francisco and smaller in less dense markets like Tucson and Fresno.

For example, in Charlotte, NC, houses in the Ashley Park neighborhood, with Walk Score
values averaging 54 have median prices of$280,000, while an otherwise similar home in
the Wilmore neighborhood, which has Walk Scores averaging 71, would be valued at
$314,000. Controlling for all other factors including size, number of bedrooms and
bathrooms, age, neighborhood income levels, distance from the Central Business
District and access to jobs, shifting a house from Ashley Park to more walkable Wilmore
would increase its value by $34,000 or 12%.

Similarly, in analysis of Washington DC neighborhoods, Leinberger and Alfonzo (2012)

found that as the number of urban design features that facilitate walkability and attract
pedestrians increase, so do office, residential, and retail rents, retail revenues, and for-
sale residential values. For example, a place with good walkability, on average,
commands $302 per month more in residential rents and has for-sale residential
property values of $82/sq. ft. more relative to the place with fair walkability, holding
household income levels constant.

Balsas (2017) analyzed walking activity and recent efforts at augmenting walkability
conditions in various cities using a WPPFUS framework which considers Walking levels,
Purposes, Primacy of walking, Facilities, Unique features and Safety concerns. It
recommends policies to make cities for people and not for automobiles and
commitment to resolving pedestrian safety concerns, including improved design,
planning, building and maintenance of streets and public spaces.

22
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Conclusions
Conventional transportation planning practices treat walking as a minor transport mode
and recognize only modest benefits from improved walkability and increased walking
activity. This results from evaluation practices that undercount nonmotorized travel and
undervalue walking benefits.

From other perspectives it is clear that walking is a critical component of the transport
system, and that improved walkability and increased walking can provide significant
benefits to society. Improved walkability increases accessibility, provides consumer and
public cost savings, increases community livability, improves public health and supports
strategic economic development, land use and equity objectives. A variety of methods
can be used to evaluate these impacts.

Conventional planning practices may conclude that walking currently receives a fair and
efficient share of transportation resources. However, this reflects an undercounting of
walking trips, an undervaluation of walking benefits, and undervaluation of motor
vehicle costs. More comprehensive evaluation indicates that walking receives less than
its appropriate share of transportation resources, and that walkability improvements
can provide a high economic return on investment.

Greater appreciation of the full benefits of walking could change planning priorities. It
would justify devoting more government funding to walking facilities and programs,
shifting road space from traffic and parking lanes to sidewalks and paths, policies to
create more walkable land use patterns, and greater efforts to manage motor vehicle
traffic to improve walking safety and comfort. These shifts support and are supported
by other transport and land use management reforms that improve transportation
options, reduce automobile dependency and create more accessible land use.

23
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

References

ABW (various years), Bicycling and Walking in the U.S.: 2010 Benchmarking Report, Alliance for
Biking & Walking, ([Link]); at
[Link]/site/[Link]/site/memberservices/C529.

Donald Appleyard (1981), Livable Streets, University of California Press (Berkeley).

Chester Arnold and James Gibbons (1996), “Impervious Surface Coverage: The Emergence of a
Key Environmental Indicator,” American Planning Association Journal, Vol. 62, No. 2, Spring
1996, pp. 243-258. Also see NEMO Project ([Link]/ces/nemo).

Austin (2000), Transportation User Fee, City of Austin Texas

([Link]/development/[Link]).

Gordon Bagby (1980), “Effects of Traffic Flow on Residential Property Values,” Journal of the
American Planning Association, Vol. 46, No. 1, January, pp. 88-94.

Carlos J.L. Balsas (2017), “The Right to Walk in Cities, a Comparative Review of Macau, Lisbon
and Las Vegas,” International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, Vol. 9 Issue: 2, pp.123-
142, ([Link]/10.1108/IJLBE-03-2017-0012); at [Link]

David Bassett, et al. (2008), “Walking, Cycling, and Obesity Rates in Europe, North America, and
Australia,” Journal of Physical Activity and Health, Vol. 5
([Link]/jpah/[Link]), pp. 795-814; at
[Link]

C.C. Bohl (2002), Place Making: Developing Town Centers, Main Streets and Urban Villages,
Urban Land Institute ([Link]).

Marlon Boarnet (1995), “New Highways & Economic Productivity: Interpreting Recent
Evidence,” Journal of Planning Literature, Vol. 11, No. 4, May 1997, pp. 476-486, also available
as Working Paper 291, University of California Transportation Center ([Link]).

Marlon G. Boarnet, Michael Greenwald and Tracy E. McMillan (2008), “Walking, Urban Design,
and Health: Toward a Cost-Benefit Analysis Framework,” Journal of Planning Education and
Research, Vol. 27, No. 3, pp. 341-358; at
[Link]

Werner Brog, Erhard Erl and Bruce James (2003), “Does Anybody Walk Anymore?,” Sustainable
Transport: Planning for Walking and Cycling In Urban Environments (Rodney Tolley Ed.),
Woodhead Publishing ([Link]), pp. 59-69

Matteo Bruno, et al. (2024), “A Universal Framework for Inclusive 15-minute Cities,” Nature
Cities ([Link]); at [Link]/articles/[Link].

BTS (2004), National Household Travel Survey, Bureau of Transport. Statistics ([Link]).

24
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Robert Burchell, et al. (1998), The Costs of Sprawl – Revisited, TCRP Report 39, Transportation
Research Board ([Link]).

Richard Campbell and Margaret Wittgens (2004), Business Case for Active Transportation: The
Economic Benefits of Walking and Cycling, Go For Green; Active Living & Environment Program
([Link]).

D. Carlson, L. Wormser, and C. Ulberg (1995), At Road’s End; Transportation and Land Use
Choices for Communities, Island Press ([Link]).

Joseph Cortright (2009), Walking the Walk: How Walkability Raises Housing Values in U.S. Cities,
CEOs for Cities ([Link]);
[Link]/files/WalkingTheWalk_CEOsforCities1.pdf.

CTE (Center for Transportation and the Environment) (2008), Improved Methods For Assessing
Social, Cultural, And Economic Effects Of Transportation Projects, NCHRP Project 08-36, Task 66,
TRB ([Link]), American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO); at [Link]/_resources/234_NCHRP-[Link].

Decima Research (2000), City of Toronto 1999 Cycling Study (presentation); at

[Link]/cycling/pdf/[Link].

Marie Demers (2006), Walk For Your Life! Restoring Neighborhood Walkways To Enhance
Community Life, Improve Street Safety and Reduce Obesity, Vital Health Publishing
([Link]/book/[Link]).

DfT (2003), 2003 National Travel Survey, UK Dept. for Transport ([Link]).

ECU (2004a), Physical Inactivity Cost Calculator ([Link]/picostcalc), College of Health &
Human Performance, East Carolina University ([Link]); documentation at
[Link]/picostcalc/pdf_file/[Link].

ECU (2004b), Physical Activity Facts and Figures, College of Health & Human Performance, East
Carolina University ([Link]); at [Link]/picostcalc/pdf_file/[Link].

Mark Eppli and Charles C. Tu (2000), Valuing the New Urbanism; The Impact of New Urbanism
on Prices of Single-Family Homes, Urban Land Institute ([Link]).

Reid Ewing, R. Pendall and Don Chen (2002), Measuring Sprawl and Its Impacts, Smart Growth
America ([Link]).

FDOT (2002), Quality/Level of Service Handbook, Florida Department of Transportation

([Link]/planning/systems/sm/los/los_sw2.htm).

FHWA (1997) 1997 Federal Highway Cost Allocation Study, USDOT ([Link]).

FHWA (annual reports), Highway Statistics, FHWA, USDOT ([Link]/ohim).

25
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

FHWA (2004), “Appendix III, Spending on Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities and Programs,”
National Bicycling and Walking Study: Ten Year Status Report, Federal Highway Administration
([Link]/environment/bikeped/study/[Link]#nbwftn5).

Footpath AI ([Link] uses artificial intelligence applied to visual semantic

segmentation, visual depth estimation, object detection, and geomapping for pedestrian
infrastructure planning, asset management, and wayfinding.

David Forkenbrock and Glen Weisbrod (2001), Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic
Effects of Transportation Projects, NCHRP Report 456, TRB ([Link]).

Ann Forsyth, Kevin J. Krizek and Asha Weinstein Agrawal (2010), Measuring Walking and Cycling
Using the PABS (Pedestrian and Bicycling Survey) Approach: A Low-Cost Survey Method for Local
Communities, Mineta Transportation Institute, San Jose State University
([Link]); at [Link]/project/[Link].

John I. Gilderbloom, William W. Riggs and Wesley L. Meares (2015), Does Walkability Matter?
An Examination of Walkability’s Impact on Housing Values, Foreclosures and Crime,” Cities, Vol.
42, pp. 13–24 ([Link] at
[Link]

Rachel Goodman and Rodney Tolley (2003), “The Decline of Everyday Walking In The UK:
Explanations And Policy Implications,” Sustainable Transport: Planning for Walking and Cycling
In Urban Environments (Rodney Tolley Ed.), Woodhead Publishing ([Link]-
[Link]), pp. 70-83.

Thomas Gotschi (2011), “Costs and Benefits of Bicycling Investments in Portland, Oregon,”
Journal of Physical Activity and Health, Vol. 8, Supplement 1, pp. S49-S58; at
[Link]
supplement-january/costs-and-benefits-of-bicycling-investments-in-portland-oregon.

Susan Handy (2009), “Walking, Bicycling, and Health,” Healthy, Equitable Transportation Policy:
Recommendations And Research, PolicyLink and the Prevention Institute Convergence
Partnership ([Link]/transportationhealthandequity).

G. Haze (2000), Counting Pedestrians, Walk San Francisco

([Link]/essays/[Link]).

Gary Hack (2013), Business Performance in Walkable Shopping Areas, Active Living Research
([Link]); at [Link]

ICLEI (2007), Active Transportation Quantification Tool, Cities for Climate Protection,
International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives ([Link] at
[Link]

26
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Sandra India-Aldana, et al. (2023), “Long-Term Exposure to Walkable Residential Neighborhoods

and Risk of Obesity-Related Cancer in the New York University Women’s Health Study,”
Environemental Health Perspectives, Vo. 131, No. 10 ([Link]

LAW (2009), Economic Benefits of Bicycle Infrastructure Investments, League of American

Bicyclists ([Link]) and the Alliance for Biking & Walking
([Link]); at [Link]

Christopher B. Leinberger and Mariela Alfonzo (2012), Walk this Way: The Economic Promise of
Walkable Places in Metropolitan Washington, D.C., Brookings Institute ([Link]); at
[Link]/research/papers/2012/05/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2012/5/25%20
walkable%20places%20leinberger/25%20walkable%20places%[Link].

LGC (2001), The Economic Benefits of Walkable Communities, Local Government Commission
([Link]).

Todd Litman (2001), “Evaluating Transportation Choice,” Transportation Research Record 1756,
Transportation Research Board ([Link]), pp. 32-41; revised version titled, You Can Get
There From Here: Evaluating Transportation System Diversity is available at
[Link]/[Link].

Todd Litman (2001b), What’s It Worth? Life Cycle and Benefit/Cost Analysis for Evaluating
Economic Value, Presented at Internet Symposium on Benefit-Cost Analysis, Transportation
Association of Canada ([Link]); at [Link]/[Link].

Todd Litman (2002), Evaluating Transportation Land Use Impacts, VTPI ([Link]); at
[Link]/[Link].

Todd Litman (2003b), “Measuring Transportation: Traffic, Mobility and Accessibility,” ITE Journal
([Link]), Vol. 73, No. 10, October, pp. 28-32; available at [Link].

Todd Litman (2004b), Evaluating Public Transit Benefits and Costs, Victoria Transport Policy
Institute ([Link]); at [Link]/[Link].

Todd Litman (2004), If Health Matters: Integrating Public Health Objectives into Transportation
Decision-Making, Victoria Transport Policy Institute ([Link]); at [Link]/[Link];
previously published as, “Integrating Public Health Objectives in Transportation Decision-
Making,” American Journal of Health Promotion, Vo. 18, No. 1
([Link]), Sept./Oct. 2003, pp. 103-108; at [Link]/AJHP-
[Link].

Todd Litman (2005), Whose Roads? Evaluating Bicyclists’ and Pedestrians’ Right to Use Public
Roadways, Victoria Transport Policy Institute ([Link]); at [Link]/[Link].

Todd Litman (2009), Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
([Link]).

27
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Todd Litman (2010), Evaluating Active Transportation Benefits and Costs, Victoria Transport
Policy Institute ([Link]); at [Link]/[Link].

Todd Litman (2010b), Short and Sweet: Analysis of Shorter Trips Using National Personal Travel
Survey Data, Victoria Transport Policy Institute ([Link]); at
[Link]/short_sweet.pdf.

Todd Litman (2011), Evaluating Transportation Economic Development Impacts, Victoria

Transport Policy Institute ([Link]); at [Link]/econ_dev.pdf.

Todd Litman (2022), Fair Share Transportation Planning, Victoria Transport Policy Institute
([Link]); at [Link]/[Link].

Todd Litman (2023), “Cool Walkability Planning: Providing Pedestrian Thermal Comfort in Hot
Climate Cities,” Journal of Civil Eng. and Environ. Sci., Vo. 9(2): pp. 79-86. (DOI: 10.17352/2455-
488X.000073); at [Link]/articles/[Link].

Todd Litman (2024), Completing Sidewalk Networks; Benefits and Costs, VTPI ([Link]); at
[Link]/[Link].

Todd Litman and Steven Fitzroy (2005), Safe Travels: Evaluating Mobility Management Traffic
Safety Impacts, VTPI ([Link]); at [Link]/[Link].

Anastasia Loukaitou-Sideris And Renia Ehrefeucht (2010), “Vibrant Sidewalks in the United
States: Re-integrating Walking and a Quintessential Social Realm,” Access 36
([Link]/access); Spring 2010, pp. 22-29; at [Link]/access/36/access-
[Link].

LTNZ (2010), Economic Evaluation Manual (EEM) – Volumes 1 & 2, Land Transport New Zealand
([Link]); at [Link]/funding/[Link] (Active
transportation health benefits data is found in Volume 2, section 3.8, p 3-22).

Barbara McCann and B. DeLille (2000), Mean Streets 2000, Surface Transportation Policy Project
([Link]).

Barbara McCann (2000), Driven to Spend; The Impact of Sprawl on Household Transportation
Expenses, Surface Transportation Policy Project ([Link]).

Measuring Walking ([Link]) describes internationally standardised

monitoring methods of walking and public space.

Paul Mogush, Kevin J. Krizek and David Levinson (2005), The Value of Trail Access on Home
Purchases, TRB Annual Meeting ([Link]).

J. Murphy and Mark Delucchi (1998), “A Review of the Literature on the Social Cost of Motor
Vehicle Use in the U.S.,” Journal of Transportation And Statistics. Vol. 1, No. 1 ([Link]),
January 1998, pp. 15-42.

28
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Christopher Murray, et al. (1996), Global Burden of Disease and Injury, Center for Population
and Development Studies, Harvard University School of Public Health
([Link]/organizations/bdu).

NBPC (1995), The Economic and Social Benefits of Off-Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities,
National Bicycle and Pedestrian Clearinghouse, No. 2 ([Link]).

NYCDOT (2012), Measuring the Street: New Metrics for 21st Century Streets, New York City
Department of Transportation ([Link]/html/dot); at
[Link]/html/dot/downloads/pdf/[Link].

Pedestrians First: Tools for a Walkable City ([Link] provides

information on why and how to improve community walkability, and practical tools for
evaluating walking conditions.

John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra (2000), “Making Walking and Cycling Safer: Lessons from
Europe,” Transportation Quarterly, Vol. 54, No. 3, Summer 2000, at [Link]/[Link].

John Pucher and Lewis Dijkstra (2003), “Promoting Safe Walking and Biking to Improve Public
Health: Lessons From The Netherlands And Germany,” American Journal of Public Health, Vol.
93, No. 9 ([Link]), pp. 1509-1516.

P. Rietveld (2000), “Nonmotorized Modes in Transport Systems: A Multimodal Chain Perspective

for The Netherlands,” Transportation Research D, Vol. 5, No. 1, January, pp. 31-36.

Shannon H. Rogers, John M. Halstead, Kevin H. Gardner and Cynthia H. Carlson (2010),
“Examining Walkability And Social Capital As Indicators Of Quality Of Life At The Municipal And
Neighborhood Scales,” Applied Research In Quality of Life ([Link]),
DOI: 10.1007/s11482-010-9132-4; at [Link]/content/xtq06270p27r1v0h.

R. Rood (1999), Local Index of Transit Availability, Local Government Commission ([Link]).

Collin Roughton, et al. (2012), Creating Walkable and Bikeable Communities: A User Guide to
Developing Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plans, Center for Transportation Studies at Portland State
University ([Link]); at [Link]

Kyle Rowe (2013), Bikenomics: Measuring the Economic Impact of Bicycle Facilities on Neighborhood
Business Districts, University of Washington; at [Link]
content/uploads/2013/07/bikenomics_v2.pdf.

K. Sælensminde (2002), Walking and Cycling Track Networks in Norwegian Cities: Cost-Benefit
Analysis Including Health Effects and External Costs of Road Traffic, Institute of Transport
Economics, Oslo ([Link]/toi_Data/Attachments/887/sum_567_02.pdf).

James F. Sallis, Lawrence D. Frank, Brian E. Saelens and M. Katherine Kraft (2004), “Active
Transportation and Physical Activity,” Transportation Research A, Vol. 38, Issue 4
([Link]/locate/tra), May, pp. 249-268.

29
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Schaller Consulting (2006), Curbing Cars: Shopping, Parking and Pedestrian Space in SoHo,
Transportation Alternatives ([Link]); available at
[Link]/campaigns/reclaiming/soho_curbing_cars.pdf

Donald Shoup (2010), “Fixing Broken Sidewalks,” Access 36 ([Link]/access); Spring 2010,
pp. 30-36; at [Link]/access/36/[Link].

Ryan Snyder (2005), The Economic Value of Active Transportation, Ryan Snyder Associates; at
[Link]/images/[Link].

SQW (2007), Valuing the Benefits of Cycling: A Report to Cycling England, Cycling England,
Department for Transport ([Link]); at [Link]/cyclingengland/site/wp-
content/uploads/2008/08/[Link].

Statistics Canada (2004), General Social Survey on Time Use, 1992, reported in “Getting There,”
in Perspectives on Labour and Income, Statistics Canada ([Link]); at
[Link]/studies-etudes/75-001/archive/e-pdf/[Link].

Robert J. Stokes, John MacDonald and Greg Ridgeway (2008), “Estimating The Effects Of Light
Rail Transit On Health Care Costs,” Health & Place, Volume 14, Issue 1, March, pp. 45-58.

Fred Sztabinski (2009), Bike Lanes, On-Street Parking and Business A Study of Bloor Street in
Toronto’s Annex Neighbourhood, The Clean Air Partnership ([Link]); at
[Link]/pdf/[Link].

João Filipe Teixeira, et al. (2024), “Classifying 15-minute Cities: A Review of Worldwide
Practices,”Transportation Research Part A, Vol. 189 ([Link]

Rodney Tolley (2011), Good For Busine$$ - The Benefits Of Making Streets More Walking And
Cycling Friendly, Heart Foundation South Australia ([Link]); at
[Link]/SiteCollectionDocuments/GoodforBusinessFINAL_Nov.pdf.

Ray Tomalty and Murtaza Haider (2009), Walkability and Health; BC Sprawl Report 2009, Smart
Growth BC ([Link]); at .

USEPA (2001), Our Built and Natural Environments: A Technical Review of the Interactions
Between Land Use, Transportation and Environmental Quality, US Environmental Protection
Agency ([Link]/smartgrowth/pdf/[Link]).

Inge van den Bijgaart, et al. (2023), “Healthy Climate, Healthy Bodies: Optimal Fuel Taxation and
Physical Activity,” Economica (doi:10.1111/ecca.12497). Also see, Economic Transport Policy
Should Prioritise Physical Activity, LSE Blogs ([Link]

VTPI (2008), Online TDM Encyclopedia, Victoria Transport Policy Institute ([Link]).

WalkIt: The Walking Resources Database ([Link]) provides extensive resources for
pedestrian planning in urban development, local transport, health and recreation.

30
 Economic Value of Walkability
Victoria Transport Policy Institute

Jay Walljasper (2013), Walking As A Way Of Life Movement For Health & Happiness, Everybody
Walks ( ([Link]); at
[Link]/media_assets/WalkingAsAWayOfLife1_Final.pdf.

Hao Wang and Yuqi Yang (2019), Neighbourhood Walkability: A Review and Bibliometric
Analysis, Cities, Vol. 93, pp. 43-61 ([Link]

Glen Weisbrod (2000), Synthesis of Current Practice for Assessing Economic Development
Impacts from Transportation Projects, NCHRP Study 20-5 ([Link]/pages/summary-
[Link]), TRB, National Academy Press, ISBN 0-309-06873-8, 2000.

Steve Weissman and Judy Corbett (1992), Land Use Strategies for More Livable Places, Local
Government Commission ([Link]).

Jaewoong Won, Chanam Lee and Wei Li (2017), “Are Walkable Neighborhoods More Resilient to
the Foreclosure Spillover Effects?” Journal of Planning Literature, pp. 1-14
([Link]

World Bank, Highways Design and Maintenance (HDM) 4 Model, World Bank
([Link]

[Link]/[Link]

31