More neighborliness, less driving in Canadian NU
Advocates of new urbanist development make strong claims about the ability of design to affect the travel decisions and attitudes of residents. A study we conducted examined new urban and conventional suburban developments in Canada, to test the hypothesis that new urbanist design translates into different travel behavior and a higher degree of resident engagement.
We first identified 38 Canadian projects with new urbanist features, and then focused on four of them — chosen on the basis of how many such features they possessed and how mature the developments were. Four conventionally designed neighborhoods were then chosen to allow meaningful comparisons. For each new urban development, a conventional development was chosen that had a similar location within the urban context, similar demographics, price ranges, size and age of neighborhood, and similar levels of access to public transit.
GIS and satellite sources along with on-site surveys and data from local planners provided detailed information on the physical design characteristics of each neighborhood. Some of the physical design metrics of the four new urban neighborhoods and the four conventional suburban developments (CSDs) are summarized in the table below. The table shows that the new urban neighborhoods were on average much denser, had far fewer detached units, more non-residential land uses within a kilometer of the neighborhood center, and slightly more greenspace. They also had far more sidewalks, smaller setbacks and narrower streets, and slightly better pedestrian connectivity. All of these were consistent with New Urbanism’s principles.
A quantitative survey was conducted among residents of the eight neighborhoods to assess their travel and social behaviors. The questionnaire included a 24-hour trip diary for all household members. The survey was carried out largely through an on-line questionnaire, but was also available in print form. It could be filled out with telephone assistance as well. Of the 11,232 households in our sample, 2,043 responded to the survey, a response rate of 18.2 percent. All spatial elements (home and daily destinations) of the survey responses were geocoded for detailed analysis of travel distances.
We used the data collected to test seven new urbanist claims. The results are summarized as follows under each claim, listed in boldface type:
Less car use for weekday urban travel: A mode split analysis suggests that new urban residents use automobiles (as a driver or passenger) less than their conventional suburban counterparts do (78 percent versus 85 percent). Analysis of the 24-hour VKTs (vehicle kilometers traveled) reported by each household suggests that the new urbanist neighborhoods have a 19 percent lower VKT per household than their CSD counterparts (37.1 km versus 46.0 km). Moreover, residents moving to new urban places were more likely to report a decrease in driving compared to their previous location, while residents of conventional developments were more likely to report an increase in car ownership and more driving in their new location.
More walking and bike use for daily destinations: We found significant evidence to support the assumption that households residing in new urbanist developments walk and bike more than their CSD counterparts. Fully 51 percent of new urban households reported walking and biking to local services and stores several times a week, compared to only 19 percent for conventional suburban households. Also, 64 percent of new urban respondents said they stroll or bike several times a week in the warm months, compared to 52 percent in CSD. Moreover, new urban residents were almost twice as likely to report that they were walking a lot more in their current location than in their previous home (37 percent versus 20 percent).
Greater use of public transit: The modal share of public transit was low in both types of developments, with, on average, no difference between the two (9 percent of trips made by transit). Although new urban developments had more transit-supportive densities, they were served with a similar level of bus transit as the conventional developments.
Higher resident satisfaction with neighborhood design: The survey revealed that in comparison with their conventional suburban counterparts, nearly twice as many residents in the new urban developments (60 percent versus 34 percent) reported being very satisfied with the physical design of the streets, landscaping, and façades in their neighborhoods. Similarly, the design of the streetscape was considered to be very safe for walking and biking by more new urban residents than inhabitants of CSD (55 percent versus 37 percent).
More use of public open/green space: 52 percent of new urban residents reported visiting public open or green spaces several times a week, compared to only 40 percent of the conventional suburban respondents, even though the neighborhood metrics showed that new urban places had only slightly more green and open space. Households in new urban neighborhoods were much more likely to report that they found it very convenient to either walk or bike to parks (70 percent versus 47 percent).
More interaction with neighbors: Most of our indicators suggest that new urban residents have more interaction with their neighbors than do CSD residents. New urban residents greeted their neighbors more often, with 35 percent reporting a greeting almost every time they are out for a walk compared to 27 percent for the conventional suburban households. New urban households also reported socializing face-to-face with their neighbors more often, with 40 percent saying they did so several times a week, in contrast to 34 percent in conventional suburbia. Although CSD residents were more likely to be members of sports or social groups, households in new urban developments attended more community events per year on average.
Greater sense of neighborhood attachment: Not surprisingly given the higher degree of satisfaction with the neighborhood design and the stronger indicators of social interaction, new urban residents were found to be more attached to their neighborhoods. We observed that 50 percent of the new urban respondents, compared with 36 percent of respondents from conventional suburbs, reported being very attached to their neighborhoods. This was the case in spite of the fact that the new urbanist neighborhoods were more recently built and their respondents had, on average, lived in them for fewer years than those in the four CSDs.
Our overall conclusion: There is considerable evidence that the four new urban developments performed better on these objectives than did their CSD counterparts. The only exception is the modal share of transit, which was the same for both neighborhood types. This may reflect the fact that CSD counterpart communities were selected in part on the basis of their similarity to new urban developments in terms of transit service.
We conducted a multiple regression analysis on VKT against the demographic, neighborhood perception, and built-form variables we collected. The results reveal that high walkability and access to public open space reduce VKT (by a coefficient of -6.8). The same happens with mixed land use and high street density (coefficient -3.8) as well as high residential density and jobs within 5 km (coefficient -4.5), all else being equal. Having households with more adults increases VKT (coefficient +5.5). The same is true for households with more car ownership (coefficient +4.1), and higher income.
All of the findings above were statistically significant. However, household perceptions about the urban design features of the neighborhood were not statistically significant predictors of VKT. Similarly, households living in single-detached homes were not found to be driving more than those in other types of units, all else being equal.
Ray Tomalty, Ph.D., is principal of Smart Cities Research Services and adjunct professor at the School of Urban Planning at McGill University in Montreal. Murtaza Haider, Ph.D., is principal of Regionomics, associate professor of supply chain and logistics management at Ryerson University in Toronto, and adjunct professor in the faculty of engineering at McGill University and the University of Toronto.
