Public Transportation Challenges in America: What can we Learn

from Mid-Size Cities in Latin America?

Dr. Diaz, Jorge. Universidad del Bio Bio. Chile

Post-Doctoral Researcher

jdiazte@ubiobio.cl +56 41 3223697

A
bAbstract
s
tA natural consequence derived from personal income growth has been car
rownership growth, but as far as there are some countries where this relation
ais not true, or at least, it is not at the same ratio as most cities in the USA a,
cwe may go in depth analysis of the variables that influences such different
tchoices.
:
At the end we want to analyze how is car ownership and car use related to
quality of life, for this we will consider time spent on daily traveling which
then determines time available for other activities that usually makes our life
more productive, as far as, we find more opportunities for personal leisure,
social life, education, family activities and so on. Of course we know that
time availability is not the only variable to be considered important but to the
extent of this research it is.

As a preliminary hypothesis, we consider that there are some variables

related to consumer preferences on a broad range of goods which then
determines if buying a car is among the most valuable options and on the
other hand how is the built environment related to transit and how is then
perceived the quality of the public transportation system.

We consider from a heuristic approach that the built environment which I

define as the Spatial Framework (SF) of the City and the Transportation
Facilities Framework (TFF) induce car ownership, there ought to be some
other variables that influences consumer preferences but the chosen
variables are within our most immediate domain as Urban Planners.

To assess the built environment-related to-transit quality we consider the

following variables:

a) Distance/Time, from Home to Work.

b) Train, Subway, and/or Bus Station (BRT) distance from dwellings.
c) Walkability around Main Origin and Destination Places.

To assess the quality of public transportation we consider the following

variables:

a) Multi-Modal Connectivity
b) Park&Ride Availability
c) Non-Motorized Modes Availability

We have chosen two cities (Quito-Ecuador and Medellin-Colombia), with a

population of almost three million people, as case-study, and we will outline
similarities and differences between them so that we can infer strategies
focus on improving quality of life, by lessen car ownership rate, or
diminishing its use, and at the same time, by improving transit modes,
enhancing Time Value.
Of course, land use planning and density management play a critical role too,
for achieving success.
Spatial Framework

When examining the Spatial Framework (SF) of a city, Figure 1b, confirms that
both population and land area increase over time, not only for USAs cities but
for most cities around the worldc .
For many cities, the increase in area has been proportionally greater than the
increase in population, and their average population densities have declined.

As shown in Figure 1, urban land grew 6.7 times from 1950-2000, while
population just grew 2.3 times and density diminished from a scale of 1 to 1/3.

In general, cities with lower population density have higher levels of vehicle
ownership, besides low overall population density may increase average trip
lengths and spur motorization, in such scenario travel time is likely to increase,
independently of trip purpose; Home-Work, Home-Services or Home-Other
Places, affecting our quality of life.

Besides, it is inferred from the analysis made by Marshall that each urban
newcomer, on average, occupies about twice the per capita land area of
existing residents, reflecting peoples desire to consume more land than their
peers, while not exceeding income constraints and/or appearing over
extravagant.
Figure 1
Urban Land Area and Population in USA-Cities: 1950-2000

Group 1; Are the first Urban Areas in the USA that were considered US Census Urban Area
(1950)

On the other hand, as shown in Table 1, almost 77 % of the total population in

Quito lives in just 4.4% of the urban land within the city, having for most of
the territory densities from 50-185 inhabitants/ha, equivalent to 5,000-18,500
inhabitants/km2 , as seen in Figure 2.
To compare with USAs cities d the city with the highest density, Los Angeles,
has just 27 inhabitants/ha or 2,700 inhabitants/km2, and San Francisco and
New York are the two other cities that are above 2,000 inhabitants/ km2.

Table 1
Population, Work Places, and Facilities in Quito

Population Urban Employee Students Health Retail Public

Land Care Offices
Km2
% % % % % % %
Quito 1413,694 76.8 188 4.4 248,468 91.6 229,643 82.4 4,239 95.6 92 80.7 107 97.3
DMQ 427,506 23.2 4067 95.6 22,839 8.4 48,999 17.6 196 4.4 22 19.3 3 2.7
Total 1841,200 100 4255 100 271,307 100 278,642 100 4,435 100 114 100 110 100

Figure 2 Figure 3
Quito-Densities Quito-Central Area
Main Transport Corridors

Besides a high concentration of people, Quitos urban land development

pattern is quite linear; this allows most people to be within a walking distance
from major transport facilities.

According to Florent Demoraes e the area where the majority of the population
lives (white area in map) has a good accessibility; this provides ease of transit
modes use.
 Figure 4
Accessibility in Quito

In the case of Medellin, from the Pilot Project of the City in 1950, it has grown
along the river, on a linear pattern limited in both sides by the mountains and
having around 10km wide in most of the urban land.

Figure 5
Medellin-Densities
According to data collected some areas of Medellin reached densities as high as
1,000 inhabitants/ha, or 100,000 inhabitants/km2 (black colored area in map),
and for most of the territory densities of 100-500 inhabitants/ha or 10,000-
50,000 inhabitants/km2, this of course alleviate the provision of transport
facilities.

Transport Facilities Framework

By 2010, as shown in Table 2, there were less than 7 cars per 100 inhabitants
in Colombia, according to the United Nations Statistical YearBook, in USA's
Cities the ratio of cars/inhabitant was as high as 0.765 in 2002, this is 76 cars
per 100 inhabitants, ten times the average in Colombia, an average which will
not be reached in Medellin or Quito, even in 2040.

Table 2

Motorization Growth in Colombia

Motorization
Year Population Vehicles
Ratio
2010 45.5 2.99 0.066
2015 48.2 3.71 0.077
2020 50.9 4.62 0.091
2025 53.6 5.86 0.109
2030 56.3 7.28 0.129
2035 59 8.80 0.149
2040 61.7 10.42 0.169

Reference: El transporte como soporte al desarrollo de Colombia, una visin

2040. Universidad de los Andes.

Although Car ownership does not necessarily imply car use (see Figure 6), it is
inferred that the possibilities of having congestion caused by cars are far less
in Cities like Medellin or Quito. Besides in some Colombian cities, as Bogota or
Medellin, f the growth of car ownership is not, as high as, the growth of
motorcycles according to current trend.

As published in a WRI report g, Europe has similar rates of car ownership as

the U.S. but the car is used less often. For example, according to Figure 6, a
small portion of Europeans relative to Americans use their cars to get to work
every day.

Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) or Km/Year traveled by car tends to be a more

accurate indicator of how far city residents are actually traveling to get to
places.
 Figure 6
Car Use and City Wealth

It is possible for public transportation to thrive, even as there are more autos
on the road, but it depends on the cost and ease of car ownership and the
quality and availability of substitute options.

In Europe, parts of Asia and even parts of the U.S., auto ownership may be
widespread [but] operating costs (specifically fuel prices, parking, and in some
areas congestion pricing) are higher, parking is not as guaranteed and driving
alternatives are more prevalent and competitive with driving. These incentives
for public transit and the availability of alternative options can actually reduce
VMT.

Households or people that own cars do not perceive driving as the only way of
getting around but rather as one option among a menu of choices. People will
likely choose the most appropriate and convenient mode for a given trip.

Then an issue arises which is to determine suitability according to each mode

of transportation, car will not be always the best choice, for example if we go
around downtown or if the trip is short enough to be made on foot or bicycle,
or on the other hand if the trip is long enough to be made by train, or where a
subway will perform better in travel time.
 Table 3

Travel Growth as a function of GIP growth in Colombian Cities

Travel/Inhabitant Travel/Inhabitant
City
2008 2040
Bogota 1.76 2.32
Medellin 1.65 2.21
Cali 1.63 2.19
Barranquilla 1.45 2.01
Pasto 1.06 1.62
Neiva 1.40 1.97
Villavicencio 1.61 2.18
Tunja 1.38 1.95
Sincelejo 1.06 1.62
Average Larger Cities 1.56 2.13
Average Smaller Cities 1.30 1.87

Reference: El transporte como soporte al desarrollo de Colombia, una visin

2040. Universidad de los Andes.

As shown in Table 3, a general trend related to travel patterns is that the

average of Travel/Inhabitant is higher in Larger Cities in comparison to Smaller
Cities (1.56 to 1.30 in 2008 and 2.13 to 1.87 as expected in 2040). This is true
worldwide not only in Colombian Cities and of course in Medellin.

This implies that Mid-Size Cities, like Medellin or Quito, have better
opportunities of managing mobility performance, including issues as ; Travel
Time, Cost, and Availability of transit, as far as there are fewer trips per
person.

This is true, as far as, population growth maintain a low rate, and authorities
are oriented to support travel demand by good provision of facilities.

As published by Yonah Freemark, in a USAs report h, in 2010, when analyzing

two distinctive cases, "How can we explain the significant public transportation
mode share declines in Houston and Dallas, two cities that invested
considerably in their respective rail transit systems?

Both saw increases in ridership of their transit systems between 2000 and
2008: Houston saw a 1.05% increase, Dallas an 11.7% jump. Those increases,
however, were entirely lost by 2010, which has been a terrible year for transit
in the two cities. At the same time, their city populations increased by 15.7%
and 9.3%, respectively; transit improvements couldnt keep up. This may be
because of poor choices in public transportation investments or re-densification
in the urban cores of these cities (or annexation, spreading the population
out), but either way these are not model cities for transit investments ".

Table 4

Modal Split-Medellin

Mode %
Bus 33.97
Pedestrian 30.27
Car 12.79
Subway 6.49
Taxi 6.39
Motorcycle 4.9
Others 4.2
Bicycle 1

Reference: Plan Estratgico de Movilidad. Movilidad/Diagnstico Alcalda de

Medelln.

The most notable feature of Medellin's Public Transportation System is the

diverse options available, while car share is similar to Bogota (14.7, in Bogota
and 12.7 in Medellin) pedestrian travel is twice Bogotas (15.1, in Bogota and
30.2 in Medellin) besides the Subway accounts for a 6.4 % of total travel in
Medellin, an option which is not available in Bogota and many cities in USA.

Medellins transportation system includes; a 30.8 km long subway network, a

Tram, BRT, Metro-Cable, a cycle network and of course pedestrian mobility.
It is already in operation the Metroplus a 12.5 km long corridor of BRT, with
21 transfer stations that enables to connect to the subway, besides major
nodes of activity.

Figure 7
Medellins Metrocable
 Figure 8
Medellins Transportation Network

Pedestrian mobility in Medellin is among the highest in Latin America, a

remarkable feature on this is the linear development of land use, through the
walkway El Poblado also known as the golden mile, there we can find;
Offices, retail, restaurants, banks, parks, touristic attractions and else
becoming a landmark within the city.

According to a research developed by Rietveld i (2001), Non Motorized

Transport, plays a substantial role up to distances of 7.5 km and walking up to
distances of 2.5 km, although local conditions (culture, public policies, urban
design) can modify for better or worse this role.

We should consider that walking and cycling are highly sensitive to the local
built environment j, some recently changes related to urban design and
specifically oriented to re-thinking public spaces use, in New York k have had a
tremendous impact on attracting more people to walk.

Compared with driving l, 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.

By 1998, in cities as Bogota, 70% of total trips made by car were less than 3
km long, then we will agree about the opportunities for lessen car trips from
improving Non Motorized options.
 Figure 9
Walkway The Golden Mile-Medellin

Table 5

Motorization Growth in Quito

Year Motorization Ratio

2002 0.145
2006 0.137
2008 0.187
2025 0.453

Motorization ratio is higher in Quito if compared to Medellin, although it is still

a low ratio if compared to most USAs cities. In Quito there are around 18 cars
per 100 inhabitants, but remember that the average in USAs cities is more
than four times this.

Table 6

Modal Split-Quito

Mode %
Bus+Tram 65
Car 35

Reference: Secretaria de Movilidad. Municipalidad de Quito. 2010

In relation to Modal Split, although in Quito the percentage of Travel by car has
reached 35 %, while at the beginning of the twenty first century was around
20%m, we should consider the way data has been aggregated. In the case of
Medellin we should consider Travel by car around 20 % (12.79+6.39) as far as
we must add to the data of Travel by car, travel made by Taxi too.

In both cases, these cities have a lower share of travel by car than USAs
cities, even to those best rated cities as Boston, Washington and San Francisco
where car mode share is around 45 %. The mode share by car in New York,
which is the best in USA, is 28.7 %, similar to the one in Quito or Medellin.

The report written by Yonah Freemark, as seen in Table 7, shows that

automobiles have a majority share in all cities except New York, Boston,
Washington, and San Francisco, unsurprisingly; these are dense cities and the
places in the United States with the most complete transit systems.

Table 7
2009 Mode Share in Americas Biggest Cities

Total
Total Total Driving
Non- Carpooling Transit Biking Walking
workers Auto Alone
Auto

Austin 428979 83.1 8.3 72.7 10.4 5.0 1.0 2.3

Baltimore 267185 70.3 25.2 60.7 9.6 17.0 1.0 7.2

Boston 338393 44.7 50.8 37.0 7.7 34.5 2.1 14.1

Charlotte 348699 87.8 6.0 76.6 11.2 3.5 0.2 2.4

Chicago 1271744 60.7 33.6 50.8 9.9 26.5 1.1 5.9

Columbus 379681 90.0 5.7 82.4 7.6 2.4 0.7 2.6

Dallas 599034 89.1 6.0 78.5 10.7 3.9 0.1 1.9

Denver 307556 79.8 13.3 69.4 10.4 7.8 1.8 3.7

Detroit 262217 82.8 12.5 71.4 11.4 7.6 0.5 4.5

El Paso 255875 90.1 5.0 79.8 10.3 2.4 0.2 2.5

 Fort Worth 331894 92.3 2.8 80.6 11.7 1.5 0.1 1.2

Houston 1058450 88.4 6.6 75.6 12.8 3.9 0.4 2.3

Indianapolis 364749 92.0 4.5 82.4 9.6 2.0 0.5 2.0

Jacksonville 378090 91.6 3.8 79.6 12.0 1.7 0.4 1.7

Las Vegas 245685 88.8 6.3 77.9 10.9 3.4 0.3 2.6

Los Angeles 1748419 77.6 15.7 67.1 10.5 11.3 1.0 3.4

Louisville 256223 89.1 6.8 79.2 9.9 4.1 0.5 2.1

Memphis 271801 90.9 4.6 78.7 12.2 2.8 0.0 1.9

Milwaukee 264010 83.1 13.8 70.4 12.6 8.4 0.6 4.7

Nashville 298121 90.8 3.7 80.6 10.1 2.2 0.1 1.4

New York 3731917 28.7 65.8 23.5 5.3 54.9 0.6 10.3

Philadelphia 616150 59.8 35.8 51.3 8.5 24.9 2.2 8.7

Phoenix 688643 88.0 6.1 74.5 13.5 3.2 0.9 2.0

Portland 289700 70.1 22.9 61.6 8.5 11.5 5.8 5.6

San Antonio 606446 90.2 5.5 78.8 11.5 3.3 0.1 2.0

Considering travel times, and having as a reference the City of Quito, there is
still a challenging scenario for future Transit Planning, since as shown in Table
8, the average of travel time in car (0.34 of an hour, this is 20.4 minutes) is
half the time of the best transit option available (0.66 of an hour or 39.6
minutes), becoming travel by car a more attractive option.
 Table 8
Comparison of Travel Times in Quito: Car-Buses-BRT

Average Speed (Km/hr) Travel Time Time Time

(hour) Saved/Day Saved/Total
Without Project With Project (-) (+) =
(-) (+)
Automobile
35.00 37.08 0.34 0.32
35.00 37.07 0.34 0.32
0.68 0.64 0.03 14,958.82 3.739,704
Bus
12.00 12.71 1.00 0.94
12.00 12.55 1.00 0.95
2.00 1.90 0.10 83,036.70 20.759,174
Metrobus-Q
18.00 19.07 0.66 0.62
18.00 18.83 0.66 0.63
1.33 1.26 0.06 11,338.34 2.834,586

Figure 10
Travel Speed in Quito 2008-2025

Finally, according to previous research made by Florent Demoraes in 2005,

when analyzing future planning scenarios in Quito (2008, 2015, 2025)
conditions related to travel speed then to travel times are likely to worsen if
current trends continue (Figure 10)
Most of the roads in Quito in 2025 (55%) will allow, for vehicles in general,
speeds below 10 km/hour n to compare, an average human walking speed is
around 5 km/hour.

A phenomenon known as the point of saturation, tends to affect any city

where motorization has had progressively augment, this means to reach
around 850 vehicles/thousand inhabitants, and then motorization rate stop
growing. Of course by that time mobility conditions may be already collapsed.

Nevertheless, according to a research made in 2007 o, vehicle saturation levels

may be different across countries, for developing countries it is estimated
around 425 vehicles/thousands inhabitants, and as written in that report,
while the historical patterns in vehicle ownership rates suggest that growing
wealth is a powerful determinant of vehicle demand, policymakers may be able
to slow the expansion of the vehicle stock through tax policies, promotion of
public transport, and appropriate urban planning an important area for future
research.

There is still much work to be done in Quito or Medellin, developing non-

motorized modes as cycle networks and considering Park&Ride facilities are
two ways that will allow to give up the automobile or at least to diminish its
use.

Walkability

Walkability is a measure of the quality of walking conditions, including safety,

comfort and convenience p, while in Latin America this concept is still poorly
use, in USA and the United Kingdom, it has been extensively considered to
assess life quality.

While, walkability has been found to have many economic benefits, including
accessibility, cost savings, increased efficiency of land use, increased livability,
economic benefits from improved public health, and economic development,
one of the most important benefits is the decrease of the automobile footprint
in the community.

RateMyStreet is a website that uses Crowd sourcing, Google Maps and a five
star rating system to empower local communities to rate the walkability of
their local streets.

Users can rate a street using eight different categories: Crossing the street,
Pavement/Sidewalk width, Trip hazards, Way finding, Safety from crime, Road
safety, Clean/attractive and disabled people access.
Conclusions:

1.- There is not a single condition that will allow improving quality of life in a
long lasting way, instead we should consider multiple and simultaneously
applied policies that comprise from land use planning, density management, to
urban design and transport facilities design.
A Transversally conceived Plan, will describe better the conceptual basis of
future interventions.

2.- Independently of improving travel time, in any city, then making more time
available for other activities, we should consider options for adding value to
travel itself. Technology ought to open alternatives for using other senses,
besides the eyes, for learning, communicate or just for pleasure while
travelling.
For instance, Wi-Fi access in transit, opens an opportunity to make more
attractive its use in comparison to car travelling.

3.- The Planning of Transport facilities considering nodes and corridors allows
better accessibility since according to recent research, the urban form leads
people to interact with their environment in a linear manner, rather than in
terms of the two dimensional space around them.
From the experiences of Quito and Medellin this premise is also validated.

4.- The concept of Trip Profile, should lead us to consider the necessity of
designing modes that include some others modes as complimentary options,
there is no a single mode that provides all the best performance for a trip.
For instance subways that allow carrying bikes in or cars carrying portable
bikes.

5.- We can induce consumer preferences to consider buying Portable Mobility

Modes (PMM), since they allow personal autonomy, a feature within the most
valuable as inferred by the growing use of automobiles.

6.- Urban Design plays a critical role on attracting pedestrian trips. People
should be able to appropriate, identify and appreciate streets and public spaces
as their own spaces, not only for functional purposes but for leisure, as well.

We should consider, as stated by Jan Gehl, Life, Space and then Buildings
and not the other way around.

7.- Park&Ride facilities are options underdeveloped, not only in Quito or

Medellin, but in most cities in Latin America.

These facilities can become attractive landmarks not only in terms of land use
but furthermore as attractive public spaces having complimentary options for
leisure, fun, and sports or else according to demand analysis.
8.- Walkability is a concept to define life quality, since it allows empathy
between people and the environment.
Conventional transportation survey data and evaluation methods do not
consider this qualitative approach, they rather tend to prioritize
quantitative basis.

References

Aspelin, Karen. "Establishing Pedestrian Walking Speeds". Portland State

University. 2005

Demoraes Florent. Movilidad, Elementos Esenciales y Riesgos en el Distrito

Metropolitano de Quito. Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement. 2005

Gregory K. Ingram and Zhi Liu. Motorization and Road Provision in Countries
and Cities. 1997

http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html

http://www.elcolombiano.com/BancoConocimiento/M/medellin_necesita_una_c
ultura_de_la_moto/medellin_necesita_una_cultura_de_la_moto.asp

http://www.embarq.org/en/node/3124

http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/10/13/transit-mode-share-trends-
looking steady-rail-appears-to-encourage-non-automobile-commutes/

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-3-1-5.html

http://www.gehlarchitects.com/#/378166/

http://www.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf

Joyce Dargay, Dermot Gately and Martin Sommer. Vehicle Ownership and
Income Growth, Worldwide: 1960-2030.

Lee and Mouden. ECMT, 2004a. 2006

Litman, Alexander. Economic Value of Walkability. 2011

Marshall, Julian. Urban Land Area and Population Growth: A New Scaling
Relationship for Metropolitan Expansion. 2007

Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming

Automobile Dependence. Washington D.C: Island Press. 1999
a
Peter Newman and Jeffrey Kenworthy. Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming
Automobile Dependence. Washington D.C: Island Press. 1999

There is evidence from this research that the correlation between income and
motorization is not linear in all cases or cities around the world. It was found, for
example, that Sydney, the city with the highest income per capita in Australia was the
place with the lowest motorization ratio within the six cities analyzed there.
Citizens from Vancouver travel twice the distance travelled by the people in Montreal.
Motorization ratio in wealthy Asian cities (Hong Kong, Singapore and Tokyo) is
comparable to the ratio of the poor cities (Bangkok, Manila or Jakarta) 217
cars/thousand inhabitant to 227 cars/thousand inhabitant, respectively.
b
Marshall, Julian. Urban Land Area and Population Growth: A New Scaling Relationship
for Metropolitan Expansion. 2007

Marshall introduces the concept of Linear Population Density (LPD) (units: people per
meter) is the number of people in a meter wide strip across an urban area. LPD is
distinct from, and behaves somewhat differently than, population density. Distributions
of LPD values among US UAs during 19502000 show surprisingly little variability over
multi decade time-scales. For example, from 1950 to 2000, average population, land
area and population density changed by more than a factor of 2, but average LPD
changed less than 10 per cent. This suggest that Modern vehicle-centric urban form
leads people to interact with their environment in a linear manner, such as along
transport corridors, rather than in terms of the two dimensional space around them,
and this fact leads to long-term consistency in linear population density.
c
Gregory K. Ingram and Zhi Liu. Motorization and Road Provision in Countries and
Cities. 1997
d
http://www.citymayors.com/statistics/largest-cities-density-125.html
e
The research considered five features to assess the accessibility (land slope, roadway
density, ratio of people/ha within a kilometer of a major road, sinuosity ratio, and
linkage between roads)
f
http://www.elcolombiano.com/BancoConocimiento/M/medellin_necesita_una_cultura_
de_la_moto/medellin_necesita_una_cultura_de_la_moto.asp
g
http://www.embarq.org/en/node/3124
h
http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2010/10/13/transit-mode-share-trends-looking
steady-rail-appears-to-encourage-non-automobile-commutes/
i
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch5s5-3-1-5.html
j
Lee and Mouden. ECMT, 2004a. 2006
k
http://www.gehlarchitects.com/#/378166/
l
Litman, Alexander. Economic Value of Walkability. 2011
m
Demoraes Florent. Movilidad, Elementos Esenciales y Riesgos en el Distrito
Metropolitano de Quito. Institut de Recherche pour le Developpement. 2005
n
Aspelin, Karen. "Establishing Pedestrian Walking Speeds". Portland State University.
2005

Although walking speeds can vary greatly depending on factors such as height, weight,
age, terrain, surface, load, culture, effort, and fitness, the average human walking
speed is about 5.0 kilometers per hour (km/h), or about 3.1 miles per hour (mph).
Specific studies have found pedestrian walking speeds ranging from 4.51 km/h to
4.75 km/h for older individuals to 5.32 km/h to 5.43 km/h for younger individuals.
o
Joyce Dargay, Dermot Gately and Martin Sommer. Vehicle Ownership and Income
Growth, Worldwide: 1960-2030.

A higher proportion of urban population and greater population density would

encourage the availability and use of public transit, and could reduce the distances
traveled by individuals and for goods transportation. Thus countries that are more
urbanized and densely populated could have a lower need for vehicles. In this study we
attempt to account for these demographic differences by specifying a countrys
saturation level as a function its population density and proportion of the population
living in urban areas. There are, of course, a number of other reasons why saturation
may vary amongst countries. For example, the existence of reliable public transport
alternatives and the use of rail for goods transport may reduce the saturation demand
for road vehicles. Alternatively, investment in a comprehensive road network will most
likely increase the saturation level. Such factors, however, are difficult to take into
account, as they would require far more data than are available for all but a few
countries.
p
http://www.vtpi.org/walkability.pdf

According to the analysis made by Alexander Litman (Victoria Transport Policy

Institute) there are, at least, the following misleading conceptions to undervalued
walking.
Walking tends to be more difficult to measure than vehicle travel, and walkability tends
to be more difficult to evaluate than motor vehicle traffic. As a result, most walking is
invisible to transportation planners.

Walking is generally considered a lower status activity compared with motorized travel.

One of the reasons that walking tends to be overlooked is that it is so inexpensive. As

a result there is not an organized walking industry as with automobile, transit and air
transport, and there is little dedicated funding.

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.

Decision-makers often take walking for granted and assume that it can take care of
itself (Goodman and Tolley 2003).