Who is Neglected More? Pedestrians or Bicyclists?

By Dom Nozzi

I was a city planner for over 20 years in Gainesville FL and Boulder CO. I’ve also read huge volumes of books and papers regarding pedestrian and bicycle transportation. In addition, I’ve visited countless cities throughout the US and Europe.

As I have noted in both my published book, it is pedestrians who are mostly neglected in cities, not bicyclists. Which makes sense, if one considers the political situation, as in all my years on this issue, I’ve never come across a pedestrian advocacy group or a pedestrian advisory board for a local government. On the other hand, it seems that thousands of towns/cities have bicycle advocacy and advisory groups.

Given the existence of thousands of bike advocacy groups and almost zero pedestrian groups, how can it possibly be that bicyclists are neglected and pedestrians get all they desire, as is sometimes claimed by bicycle advocates???

In Gainesville, for example, bike lanes and paths have been built throughout the city. Sidewalk gaps and excessively narrow sidewalks, meanwhile, are everywhere. I never saw a pedestrian advocacy group get up at a public meeting in Gainesville to call for more pedestrian facilities. But almost every month, there were bike groups getting local government to provide for them.

Sure, there are lots of bike/ped advisory and advocacy groups, but that is a misnomer for every one I’ve seen. “Pedestrian” is added to the group name almost as an afterthought, but there is no serious consideration given to pedestrians by such groups, nor does anyone in such groups seem to have any wisdom regarding pedestrian design. They tend to all be bicyclists (who are perhaps seeking to be more inclusive by attaching “pedestrian” to their group name).

I don’t know why there have been so few ped advocacy or advisory groups. I think there are some in bigger cities, due to the higher number of pedestrians. My guess is that it is more likely that bicyclists will ride recreationally in groups and peds are more likely to walk alone (and have less need for dedicated facilities).

I say all this despite the fact that I am a lifelong bicycle commuter and recreational bicyclist. I also wrote a master’s thesis on bicycle travel. Better bicycling facilities are essential in all American cities.

I have come to learn, however, that pedestrians are the design imperative in town centers, not bicyclists, if our aim is to improve safety, health, economics, quality of life, civic pride and conviviality.

And American is failing miserably in providing a quality pedestrian environment (poor for bicyclists as well, but walking is much more difficult in most places than bicycling).

By the way, in my humble opinion, the key for improving conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians: shorter travel distances via higher residential densities and commercial intensities, compact design, and mixed use – all of which come from priced/scarce car parking, and constrained/reduced road sizes. Providing bike lanes/paths or sidewalks does very little to induce walking or bicycling if the travel distances are too large, if roads are too big, and if there is too much free parking for cars.

In the great walking cities in Europe, for example, walking rates (and pedestrian enjoyment) are extremely high, yet sidewalks in such cities are often worse than in many US cities. Indeed, Savannah and Charleston are two of the best walking cities in the US, yet their sidewalks are nowhere near the best in the nation.

I will admit that US cities are woefully inadequate in the provision of off-street urban bike paths, as many bicyclist advocates often point out. But it is not clear to me that such facilities make sense at all in American town centers. I’m one of those Complete Streets people who believe it is best to design narrow, low-speed streets in town centers. So low-speed that bicyclists can comfortably share the lane with cars. Bike lanes in town centers, in other words, are almost never appropriate.

Overall, then, besides the key elements I mention above, the best design approach for bicyclists and pedestrians is via the use of context-sensitive design: Pedestrians are the design imperative in town centers. Bicyclists are the imperative in suburban areas adjacent to town centers.

And as I have indicated above, our cities have much more significantly neglected the needs of pedestrians than bicyclists. For our cities to be better places to live, our number one priority is to improve conditions for pedestrians.


Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.

Visit: www.walkablestreets.wordpress.com

Or email me at: dom[AT]walkablestreets.com

50 Years Memoir CoverMy memoir can be purchased here: Paperback = http://goo.gl/9S2Uab Hardcover =  http://goo.gl/S5ldyF

My book, The Car is the Enemy of the City (WalkableStreets, 2010), can be purchased here: http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/the-car-is-the-enemy-of-the-city/10905607Car is the Enemy book cover

My book, Road to Ruin, can be purchased here:


My Adventures blog


Run for Your Life! Dom’s Dangerous Opinions blog


My Town & Transportation Planning website


My Plan B blog


My Facebook profile


My YouTube video library


My Picasa Photo library


My Author spotlight





Filed under Bicycling, Urban Design, Walking

4 responses to “Who is Neglected More? Pedestrians or Bicyclists?

  1. Dom

    You read my mind. We were having just such a disussion last week here in Vancouver during a workshop that we have a Biccle advisory Committee but where’s the pedestrian version. I am certainly pro bike, but sometimes during the monthly critical mass bike ride in downtown I feel like starting a pedestrian critical mass, cutting that cycling group in half as we walk between them.

  2. Thanks for chiming in w/ your supportive thoughts. Pedestrians tend to be neglected, which is so tragic for cities, since they are the lifeblood of a healthy town center. I like your pedestrian critical mass idea. Has anyone tried that anywhere else?

  3. Pingback: Planning Picture

  4. yason

    It seems to me that faster traffic can always adapt to slower traffic, even if less conveniently, but slower traffic can’t scale up to faster traffic.

    Bicycles can be used in more pedestrian friendly areas. It just might be less convenient if you have less space, slower speeds and there are a lot of pedestrians. But if you adapt to these requirements you can easily pedal around the place, sometimes faster, sometimes slower.

    However, if the roads are designed for bicycles and cars, pedestrians have no way. The practical range of a bicycle is much greater than the practical range of walking, so shops and places can be further away from each other and still accessible by a bicycle. Special bicycle lanes ensure freedom of pedalling but make it longer for pedestrians to cross the road.

    Now, in the above, substitute “car” for “bicycle” and “bicycle” for pedestrian…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s