OVERBUILT AND UNDERSERVING: AN EVALUATION OF 
PATTERSON STREET, EUGENE, OREGON 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
by  
RACHEL ELIZABETH CODY HESS  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
A THESIS  
  
Presented to the Department of Environmental Studies    
and the Robert D. Clark Honors College   
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of   
Bachelor of Science  
  
May 2022  
  
 
 
 
 
 
An Abstract of the Thesis of  
 
Rachel Elizabeth Cody Hess for the degree of Bachelor of Science 
in the Department of Environmental Studies to be taken June 2022 
  
Title:  Overbuilt and Underserving: An Evaluation of Patterson Street, Eugene, Oregon  
  
Approved:         Marc Schlossberg, PhD  
                   Primary Thesis Advisor  
  
Two-lane one-way streets like Patterson St. in Eugene, Oregon are overbuilt to 
support car users and underserve a significant market of community members who 
cannot, or do not want to drive. The public right-of-way on two-lane, one way, streets is 
designed to maximize the throughput of automobiles and detracts from other street 
users’ ability to use alternative modes of transportation like walking, biking, and 
busing. In this study, an evaluation of Patterson St. was conducted to understand if the 
two-lane, one-way, streets with parking on either side enhances the mobility, 
accessibility, and quality of life of those who live adjacent to it and travel it frequently.   
The evaluation included a street user count, a survey distributed to Spencerview 
Apartment residents and YMCA members, and a focus group. The street user count 
showed that Patterson St. is dominated by car users (93% of users). The survey showed 
that people would rather take more trips by biking, walking, and busing, but choose to 
drive for safety and convenience reasons. Survey takers and focus group participants 
identified that Patterson St. is a barrier to accessing their community and if the street 
supported more suitable transportation options, they would take more trips by biking, 
walking, and busing, and be less dependent on their car. Focus group participants noted 
that they were forced to adapt to the infrastructure on Patterson St. by buying cars and 
biking on the sidewalk. Most notably participants thought that their quality of life would 
significantly improve if their transportation needs and preferences were supported by 
the transportation infrastructure on Patterson St.  
  
 
ii 
 
 
 
 
Acknowledgements  
I would like to sincerely thank Professor Marc Schlossberg for his constant 
support and grounding advice throughout the development of this thesis. Without his 
guidance and encouragement, this project would not have made sense. Thank you also 
to Transportation Option Program Manager Shane Rhodes, for being my second reader 
and Professor Lindsay Hinkle for being my Clark Honors College representative on my 
Thesis Committee. Thank you to all of the wonderful professors I’ve had throughout my 
time at University of Oregon who have supported me and inspired me throughout this 
strenuous but rewarding experience. Special thanks to Professor Mark Carey of the 
Clark Honors College and Environmental Studies Dept. for organizing and awarding the 
“Environmental Futures Grant”, without which, funds would not have been available to 
compensate my participants for the survey and focus group.  
Finally, thank you so much to my parents Besty Cody and James Hess for their 
infinite support, love, inspiration, and interest in not just this Thesis, but everything I 
take on. Thank you for your faith and encouragement to always challenge myself and to 
try and be a positive impact in my community.  
 
 
  
 
 
 
iii 
 
 
 
 
Table of Contents  
 
Introduction 1 
Background 7 
Transportation in Eugene 15 
Case study of Patterson St. transportation options 16 
Literature Review 18 
Multi-Lane, One-Way Streets: 18 
Impact on speed 18 
Impact on traffic violence 22 
Impact on local economy 22 
Impact on Equity 26 
Transportation options and quality of life 27 
Evaluating streets 29 
Livability 30 
Methods 32 
Street User Counts Data Description 33 
Survey Description 35 
Focus Group Description 36 
Results 37 
Street User Counts 37 
Street Functions and Observations 39 
Survey Results: Street User Experience 42 
Focus Group Results: Street User Perception 48 
Safety concerns while using Patterson St: 48 
Issues of time and convenience 50 
More transportation options will improve quality of life 52 
Reducing personal carbon footprint 53 
Participant requests for Patterson St. improvements 54 
Conclusion 56 
Bibliography 59 
iv 
 
 
 
 
List of Figures   
Figure 1: Aerial view of Eugene showing the five two-lane, one-way streets. 
Figure 2: Aerial view of Eugene. Patterson St. and adjacent Spencerview Apartments, 
YMCA, and South Eugene High School. 
Figure 3. Patterson St. cross section view. 
Figure 4. Right-of-way allocation on Patterson St. 
Figure 5. Uneven sidewalk with cracks. 
Figure 6. Sidewalk lacking curb cuts. 
Figure 7. Flooded sidewalks on Patterson St.        
Figure 8. Lack of crosswalks on Patterson St. 
Figure 9. Low visibility while crossing Patterson St. 
Figure 10. Aerial photo of Portland Or., in 1953.  
Figure 11. Aerial photo of Portland Or., in 2014.  
Figure 12. S.W. 3rd Ave and Washington St. Portland, Oregon, 1905.  
Figure 13. S.W. 3rd Ave and Washington St. Portland, Oregon, June 2019. 
Figure 14. Fifth Ave. in Manhattan before street redesign. 
Figure 15. Fifth Ave. in Manhattan before street redesign. 
Figure 16. Vanderbilt Ave before the redesign. 
Figure 17. Vanderbilt St. after the redesign.  
Figure 18. Screenshot of “Counter +”.  
Figure 19. Users Traveling through Patterson (North to South). 
Figure 20. Percentage of street users traveling through Patterson St. 
Figure 21. Users Traveling across Patterson St. (East and West).  
Figure 22. Percentage of street users traveling across Patterson St.   
 
 
  
v 
 
 
List of Figures  
Figure 1. Aerial view of Eugene highlighting the five two-lane, one-way streets. 2 
Figure 2. Aerial view of Eugene. Patterson St. and adjacent Spencerview Apartments., 
YMCA, and South Eugene High School. 3 
Figure 3. Patterson St. cross section view 4 
Figure 4. Right-of-way allocation on Patterson St. 4 
FiFigure 6. Sidewalk lacking curb cuts. 6 
Figure 7. Flooded sidewalks on Patterson St. 7 
Figure 8. Lack of crosswalks on Patterson St. 7 
Figure 17. Vanderbilt St. after the redesign. 25 
Figure 18. Screenshot of “Counter +” 34 
Figure 19. Users Traveling through Patterson (North to South) 37 
 
 
 
 
 
List of Tables   
Table 1. Patterson St. User Mode Counts Traveling Through the Corridor   
Table 2. Patterson St. User Mode Counts Traveling Across the Corridor   
Table 3. Survey respondents actual vs. preferred % of trips by different modes  
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
vi 
 
 
Introduction 
Prior to the widespread adoption of the automobile, streets were shared spaces, 
used equally by all people using different transportation modes. Now, most space in the 
public right-of-way is dedicated to the movement and storage of cars. Such streets 
include multi-lane, one-way streets with parking on either side which are incredibly 
common in most American cities. The public right-of-way on these streets is designed 
to allow high volumes of cars to move through corridors quickly. High vehicle speeds 
and high traffic volumes paired with lacking pedestrian, bike, and bus infrastructure 
encourage driving as opposed to using alternative, less expensive and less carbon-
intensive transportation modes. In other words, we have adapted to our street’s built 
design by buying cars in order to comfortably navigate our communities.  
There are currently five two-lane one-way streets in Eugene, Oregon that bisect 
neighborhoods (Figure 1). Oak, Pearl, High, Patterson, and Hilyard streets allow cars to 
move quickly through the community and the neighborhoods they bisect. The streets 
have a speed limit of 25 MPH, but cars frequently appear to reach speeds of over 40 
MPH. My research aims to understand if the current public right-of-way allocation 
adequately serves all community members’ transportation needs and preferences. To 
inform this understanding, I researched the transportation needs and preferences of a set 
of community members on Patterson St., which was selected for its high speeds, traffic 
incidents, and proximity to multi-family housing, schools, and recreational facilities 
(Figure 2). 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 1. Aerial view of Eugene highlighting the five two-lane, one-way streets.  
 
 
2 
 
 
Figure 2. Aerial view of Eugene. Patterson St. and adjacent Spencerview Apartments., 
YMCA, and South Eugene High School.  
 
  
Of the 60 feet of public right of way on Patterson St. (from sidewalk to 
sidewalk), 67% is dedicated solely to the movement and storage of private cars, 20% is 
green space or curb cuts between the curb and sidewalk, 13% is sidewalk, 0% is 
protected bike infrastructure, and 0% is dedicated bus infrastructure (Figures 3-4). This 
design over time has reallocated vast amounts of public rights-of-way to car drivers, to 
the exclusion of many community members and their potential preferences. While we 
often view our street spaces as fixed and unchanging, we can reorganize our public 
rights-of-way to adapt to community needs and preferences with inexpensive 
interventions like paint, concrete, or plastic bollards.   
3 
 
 
Figure 3. Patterson St. cross section view 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 4. Right-of-way allocation on Patterson St. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4 
 
 
Sidewalks on Patterson St. 3 ft. wide. In many places, although not all, they are 
uneven. Sidewalks are also often flooded with water and debris (Figures 5-7). While 
crosswalks exist at 13th St., 18th St, 19th St. and the YMCA at 21st St., cross walks do not 
exist at the other 6 intersections on Patterson St. in the study area. Furthermore, 
visibility is low at intersections. Parked cars on both sides of the street make it hard for 
people crossing to see oncoming traffic and vice versa (Figure 8-9).   
              
 
5 
 
 
Figure 6. Sidewalk lacking curb cuts. 
 
    
  
6 
 
 
Figure 7. Flooded sidewalks on Patterson        
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 8. Lack of crosswalks on Patterson St. 
 
 
 
 
 
  
Figure 9. Low visibility while crossing 
7 
 
 
Background  
Throughout the first half of the 20th Century, thriving communities in American 
cities were demolished to make way for the private automobile. Federally subsidized 
highway systems paved over neighborhoods to connect increasingly sprawling suburbs 
to urban areas. The “fine-grained” nature of American cities was replaced by “coarse-
grained” development of superblocks and megastructures, including sprawling parking 
lots, and highways (“60 Years of Urban Change”, 2016). We can see this effect on the 
urban fabric of Portland, Oregon in the before and after highway installations in Figures 
10 and 11.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
8 
 
 
 
Figure 10. Aerial photo of Portland Or., in 1953. (North is the top of the figure) 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Figure 11. Aerial photo of Portland Or., in 2014. (North is the top of the figure) 
 
 
  
 
Notice the significant number of buildings that were cleared to make way for the 
highway corridor on the East bank of the Willamette River. On the west side of 
Portland, between Providence Park stadium and downtown, you’ll notice another 
highway corridor that replaced miles of what had once been buildings and possibly 
neighborhoods.   
9 
 
 
At the street level, the public right-of-way that had once been equally shared 
between pedestrians, cyclists, street cars, and early automobiles, became dominated by 
private automobiles (Figures 12 and 13).  
  
Figure 12. S.W. 3rd Ave and Washington St. Portland, Oregon, 1905. 
 
Pedestrians, bicycles, street cars, and early automobiles shared the street equally. Street cars and 
automobiles naturally moved slowly to watch out for pedestrians. 
  
 
10 
 
 
Figure 13. S.W. 3rd Ave and Washington St. Portland, Oregon, June 2019. This image comes from 
Google maps street view.    
 
Today, pedestrians only cross the public right-of-way in specially marked crosswalks. Cars 
travel freely on the street at high rates of speed, bikers either bike on the sidewalk or in fast car traffic, 
and the street cars at this location are no longer present.  
 
This shift in public space allocation from shared to car dominant was not an 
accident. Between 1910 and 1920, over 200,000 deaths were caused by automobiles. A 
majority of the deaths were pedestrians struck by automobiles, of which half were 
children (Norton, 2008). Cars were feared and despised by most during this period. 
Most community members banded together to protect the street for shared use by all. 
Drivers and automobile manufacturers waged a swift and comprehensive campaign to 
commandeer the public right-of-way for automobile use. The American Automobile 
Association called the movement “Motordom.” This campaign aimed to convince 
society that to achieve street safety, pedestrians, not cars, needed to be controlled. 
Charles Hayes, President of the Chicago Motor Club told friends that the solution to 
allocating more space to cars was to persuade people that “the streets are made for 
11 
 
 
vehicles to run upon” (Thompson, 2014). When accidents occurred, the blame began to 
be placed on pedestrians, not car drivers. “Jaywalking” became a crime in 1923 when 
the Automobile Club of Southern California paid police to erect signs prohibiting it, and 
by 1925, jaywalkers could be arrested in Washington State and sentenced to join a 
“Careful Walkers Club.” Throughout the next century, cities made room for cars. 
Turning public rights-of-way (which had once been truly public and shared by all mode 
users) into spaces where cars were superior and other mode users were infrequent 
guests.    
Traffic violence (or fatalities and injuries caused by car accidents) is the leading 
cause of death in the United States for people between the ages 1-54 (CDC, 2020). In 
2020, cars killed over 42,000 people in the U.S. (NSC, 2021), even as fewer people 
were driving during the first year of the Covid-19 Pandemic. These deaths are tragic 
and largely preventable. In April of 2021, 17-year-old Conner Traux was killed on 
Patterson St in Eugene, Oregon when he was driving four other teens. He lost control of 
the car and crashed into a tree. He died and the four others were injured (Krauss, 2021). 
These deaths happen, and while we grieve the loss, the design of Patterson St. remains 
unchanged and continues to support traffic violence. 
High vehicle speeds kill thousands of innocent people every year. As speeds 
increase to over 18 MPH, when crashes occur, bones are broken, and organs are 
damaged. As speed increases over 35 MPH crashes often become fatal (Limpert, 1994; 
Tumlin; 2012). Over the course of my research, I witnessed dozens of near misses 
between fast moving cars traveling through Patterson St. and other people using the 
12 
 
 
street. We as a society seem to accept this dangerous street environment as the status 
quo.   
Not only does this situation cause over a million premature deaths worldwide 
annually, it also breeds income, age, physical ability, and public health inequities (CDC 
2020; Lampkin, 2014; Litman, 2020). The dominance of car-centric public rights-of-
way makes people dependent on owning and being able to operate a car to navigate 
most communities, including Eugene.   
Low-income families are disproportionately cost-burdened by transportation 
expenses and traffic-related health effects. Streets that are designed for cars make it 
necessary for many low-income families to own cars to navigate their communities 
safely and independently. Very low-income families spend upwards of 30% of their 
annual household income on transportation (Cohen, 2017). Such families often must 
sacrifice basic needs to pay for car-related expenses (Litman, 2020). Additionally, on 
average, 58,000 premature deaths per year can be attributed to traffic-related air 
pollution (Caiazzo et al., 2013).  
Communities of color bear a disproportionate burden of the public health 
consequences of automobile-dependent transportation networks (Sanchez et al., 2003). 
Asthma and asthma related death are twice as common in African American 
populations as in white populations while African Americans represent 12% of the U.S. 
population and white populations represent 24%. Higher rates of asthma can be traced 
to proximity to highway interchanges, and lack of alternative transportation options in 
neighborhoods (Sanchez et al., 2003). The air pollution from induced automobile trips 
13 
 
 
emissions disproportionately impacts the health of communities of color and causes 
thousands of premature deaths every year.  
Car dominant streets are not designed for people of all ages and abilities. As 
people age, their ability to drive decreases as sight, reaction time, fitness, and memory 
decline (O’Neill et al., 2019). Aging populations are increasingly isolated and 
dependent on others to move around their communities because of the lack of suitable 
transportation options available to them (O’Neill et al., 2019; Lampkin, 2014). On the 
opposite side of the age bracket, children and teens under the age of 16 are increasingly 
isolated and unable to access their communities safely and independently. In the U.S. 
children often rely on parents to drive them to and from school and extracurricular 
commitments (Montgomery, 2013). Furthermore, those with disabilities often must rely 
on others to access their community as their driving ability may be impaired. In general, 
streets that are designed for cars can have devastating equity impacts. The next time you 
take a trip through your community, ask yourself, “How accessible are these streets to 
people with disabilities, children, and aging populations?”   
Streets that are car dominant and lack transportation options induce car trips that 
contribute significantly to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In 2020, the transportation 
sector accounted for 27% of total GHG emissions in the U.S. (U.S. EPA, 2020). A 
single-occupancy vehicle emits 404 g CO2 per passenger mile, a bus emits 82 g CO2 per 
passenger mile, a bike emits 8 g CO2 per passenger mile, and walking emits 0 g CO2 per 
passenger mile (Bordenkircher and O’Neil, 2021). Retrofitting streets to make public 
rights-of-way more navigable by less carbon-intensive modes of transport like walking, 
biking, and busing, can reduce GHG emissions contributing to climate change.  
14 
 
 
Transportation in Eugene  
In 2017 the City of Eugene published Envision Eugene, a large community 
engagement project that describes a vision for what the community wants Eugene to be 
like in 2032. The city staff and members of the community noted that, “A future in 
which people must drive cars for most trips – to work, school, errands and recreation – 
does not support community goals and values.” Unfortunately, the Eugene 
Transportation Systems Plan (ETSP) falls short of planning a future with a connected 
network of protected bike and pedestrian infrastructure, which is what many involved in 
the Envision Eugene project said was needed. About 6% of the people surveyed by the 
National Association of Transportation Officials (NACTO) feel comfortable riding 
bikes in mixed traffic, while 81% said they would ride more if protected bike lanes were 
available (NACTO, 2017). It is unrealistic to expect a significant change in the 
transportation mode decisions people make without providing a connected and 
protected network of pedestrian, and bike infrastructure.   
In the ETSP, two-lane one-way streets such as Oak, Pearl, High, Patterson, and 
Hilyard are classified as minor arterial corridors. While the speed limit is 25 MPH, cars 
often appear to travel over 40 MPH. In the ETSP, a bike infrastructure map of Eugene 
shows that these two-lane, one-way streets currently have a bike lane on them for parts 
of the corridors. The bike lane consists of two painted lines situated between a 10-foot 
parking lane, and two 10-foot lanes for cars, thereby sectioning off three feet for 
cyclists. Because of the high speed and volume of cars that travel on these roads, the 
existing bike infrastructure is not suitable for encouraging people to bike (NACTO, 
2017).   
15 
 
 
On these two-lane one-way streets, buses are given little legitimacy in terms of 
the public right-of-way dedicated to them. Bus stops are signaled by a pole in the 
pavement on the sidewalk and they travel in the same lanes as private vehicles making 
them less efficient during peak travel hours (NBRTI and CUTR, 2006). Pedestrian 
infrastructure is poorly kept. Cracks in the sidewalks and inconsistent curb cuts make 
people with unsure footing and mobility issues less likely to be able to use them (Figure 
16-18).   
When considering these two-lane, one-way streets, the City of Eugene thinks of 
them in pairs. Patterson St. runs south while Hilyard St. (its pair) runs north. Knowing 
this, I chose to focus solely on Patterson St. as a case study to be applied to the other 
two-lane, one-way, streets. It was best to narrow the focus of this thesis as much as 
possible for the sake of clarity and quality of the data collected, as well as the time 
taken to conduct the field research and length of the report.  
Case study of Patterson St. transportation options 
My research aims to understand if the current public right-of-way allocation 
adequately serves all community members transportation needs and preferences. To 
understand how these two-lane one-way streets meet the needs and preferences of 
community members, my research aims to answer three research questions:  
1. What transportation modes dominate Patterson St.?   
2. Does Patterson St. support transportation options for all community 
members?  
16 
 
 
3. Is Patterson St.'s design a barrier to community members trying to go about 
their lives?  
The literature reviewed includes studies, books, and transportation agency 
reports/plans about how street design impacts the function of users, public health, the 
local economy, equity, and greenhouse gas emissions. The literature shows that the two-
lane, one-way public right-of-way design encourages car trips and discourages trips by 
other active and less carbon-intensive modes of transportation. My field research also 
shows that the two-lane, one-way, with parking on either side street design is dominated 
by car users, while pedestrians and cyclists make up a small proportion of street users. 
My survey and focus group show that people in this community would rather bike, walk 
and bus for more of their trips, but they choose to drive instead because of the lack of 
suitable transportation options on Patterson St. People who live adjacent to Patterson St. 
and travel it frequently view the street as a barrier for accessing their community freely, 
independently, and inexpensively. They believe that their quality of life would improve, 
and their number of car trips would decline if the public right-of-way were more 
equitably allocated to biking, walking, and busing infrastructure.   
According to my field research, the community wants more transportation 
options right outside their doors. Without a connected and protected network of bike, 
pedestrian, and bus infrastructure, Eugene will never see the shift from car trips to 
alternative modes of transportation it appears to desire to meet its climate and social 
goals–goals that I found the immediate community around Patterson St. wants and that 
the larger Eugene community indicated it wanted during the Envision Eugene process.   
  
17 
 
 
Literature Review   
Multi-Lane, One-Way Streets:  
Impact on speed  
Street design impacts how people use the public right-of-way. Regardless of 
what the speed limit posting is on a street, motorists will drive at the speed that they feel 
the street allows them to drive. In 2009, Montreal implemented speed limit reductions 
on local streets. Heydari et al. studied the impacts of speed limit reduction on speeding 
behavior. They found that incidents of speeding increased on one-way streets with wide 
lane widths, and during nighttime hours. The researchers concluded that with the 
intervention of a speed limit sign, the incidents of excessive speeding did not 
significantly decrease (Heydari, Miranda-Moreno, and Liping, 2014). Conversely, the 
presence of on-street parking tends to correlate to less excessive speeding.   
In Street Fight: A Handbook for an Urban Revolution, Janette Sadik-Khan 
illustrates an example of a common street design found in most American cities. The 
example street is a two-lane, one-way street with parking on either side. She breaks 
down the dimensions of the street. Its 12-foot lanes are not arbitrary widths but actually 
highway lane standards that are built to accommodate the widest of semi-trucks. She 
continues to point out that a majority of this space is unused because most city cars and 
trucks are 6-8 feet wide. Thereby treating city streets like highways, planners trap 
millions of miles of public space inside streets used primarily by one type of traveler: 
car users. She explains that wider and more car lanes give cars more breathing room to 
drive at high speeds.   
18 
 
 
On Fifth Avenue, the New York City Department of Transportation 
(NYCDOT), turned what for decades had been five lanes of one-way car traffic flanked 
by parallel parking on either side, into three lanes of car traffic, one lane dedicated to 
buses only, a cycle track protected by a floating lane of car parking, and another parking 
lane on the other side of the street (Figures 14 and 15). The pedestrian environment was 
improved by the reorganization of the public right-of-way. Before the redesign, 
pedestrians had to cross seven total lanes of cars (five moving traffic lanes and two 
parking lanes). After the redesign, pedestrians cross the bike path, get to a pedestrian 
island, and then cross three lanes of car traffic, a bus only lane, and either a blocked off 
part of the parking lane, or a bulb-out. This redesign makes what once was a stressful 
quick walk or run across seven lanes, a walk across 3-4 lanes of car and bus traffic. The 
redesign is considered a more equal power dynamic between users of the street, whereas 
before, cars dominated the public right-of-way, buses were stuck in the same traffic, 
pedestrians were shunted to the outskirts, and bicyclists were just not invited to the 
party. The redesign boasted immediate economic impacts by allowing more users on the 
street. Bus ridership increased, commercial vacancies dropped by 47%, and bicycle 
counts increased by 177%.   
 
 
 
 
 
 
19 
 
 
 
Figure 14. Fifth Ave. in Manhattan before the street redesign.  
 
 
 
Figure 15. Fifth Ave. in Manhattan after the street redesign. 
 
 
 
20 
 
 
The NYCDOT used a similar redesign to add transportation options to Ninth 
Ave. and Prospect Park West in Brooklyn. In the instance of redesigning multi-lane 
one-way streets to support more transportation options, the Park Slope community 
asked the NYCDOT to add bike lanes in an effort to slow constantly speeding traffic 
through their neighborhood. The department converted one of the driving lanes into a 
two-way cycle track, added pedestrian islands to either side of the street, and decreased 
the lane width. Where previously pedestrians and cyclists had been forced together on 
the sidewalk, thereby creating conflict between the faster-moving cyclists, pedestrians, 
and people pushing strollers, there was now more room for everyone to enjoy the public 
right-of-way. But what about the cars? Isn’t limiting car traffic to two lanes unfair to 
drivers? Intuitively one would think that their driving time will skyrocket. Evidence has 
shown this to be false (Sadik-Khan, 2016). Reducing the number of car lanes from three 
to two had no effect on car throughput. The only effect it had on cars was the intended 
one: slowing car traffic. Otherwise, the better-timed traffic signals reduced the instances 
of cars speeding up to slowing down at intersections.   
In the fall of 2020, 13th Ave. in Eugene, Oregon was re-allocated. For decades, 
13th Ave. had two car travel lanes, and parking on both or one side of the street 
depending on the block. The one-way avenue runs east to west through Eugene from 
Polk St. to Kincaid St. It runs through the Jefferson Westside neighborhood, dense 
apartment complexes in the West University neighborhood and ends at the University of 
Oregon campus. Before the redesign, bikers riding the wrong way down the street and 
crowding pedestrians on the sidewalks was very common. To create more space for 
bikers and to create a new connection from west to east Eugene, the city replaced one of 
21 
 
 
the car travel lanes with a protected two-way bikeway. The redesign supports hundreds 
of bikers traveling along the corridor every day. The 13th Ave. protected bikeway is a 
successful and effective example of how the City of Eugene has reallocated public 
space that was once dominated by car movement and car storage to other forms of 
mobility.  
Impact on traffic violence   
In reviewing the recent literature regarding one-way streets, it appears that one-
way streets with two or more lanes dedicated to car traffic have higher incidences of 
traffic violence than two-way streets for motorists, pedestrians, and bikers (Riggs and 
Gilderbloom 2017). In a different study where the researchers used a moving camera 
analysis to determine drivers' and cyclists' perceptions of safety on different road types, 
Riggs (2019) found that perceptions of individual safety are different for drivers and 
cyclists on one-way multi-lane streets. Drivers felt comfortable driving faster while on 
the same roads, while cyclists perceived the corridors as less safe. The researchers also 
found that the perceived safety of a corridor can influence an individual's modal choice, 
particularly for parents. Furthermore, if a parent perceived a corridor as unsafe, they 
were less likely to let their children walk or bike (Riggs, 2019). The evidence clearly 
delineated that multi-lane, one-way streets prioritize the speed and mobility of 
automobiles while detracting from other modes’ perceived and actual safety of use.   
Impact on local economy   
It also appears that one-way street designs aren’t great for the local economy. In 
their analysis of one-way street conversions to two-way streets, researchers Riggs and 
22 
 
 
Gilderbloom found that jobs in the food and retail sector of the local economy always 
increased after one-way streets were turned into two-way streets. The authors also 
found increases in crime, housing abandonment, and significant decreases in housing 
values on multi-lane one-way streets (Riggs and Gilderbloom, 2017).   
In Brooklyn, New York, on Vanderbilt Ave. from Dean to Plaza St., the 
NYCDOT redesigned the 60’ wide street that had two car traffic lanes in either 
direction and parking on both sides (Figure 16). With the goal of creating dedicated 
bike space, improving pedestrian safety and comfort, calming traffic, and supporting 
residents and local businesses, the NYCDOT gave the street a “road diet.” It 
implemented a pedestrian median in the middle of the street, reduced the car travel 
lanes to one in either direction, added dedicated bike lanes in either direction, and kept 
the parking on both sides of the street (Figure 17).   
 
Figure 16. Vanderbilt Ave before the redesign. 
23 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
24 
 
 
Figure 17. Vanderbilt St. after the redesign.  
 
  
 The NYCDOT analyzed the sales tax data from before and after the street 
redesign. They found that after the first year of the redesign, retail sales on the street 
increased by 39%. After the second year, they had increased by 56% and after the third 
year, sales had more than doubled by 102% (NYCDOT and Midland, 2013). 
Throughout Mayor Bloomberg’s administration, the NYCDOT converted hundreds of 
miles of what had once been street space occupied by cars, to dedicated space for buses, 
bikers, and pedestrians. Consistently, economic activity significantly increased after the 
redesigns aimed at reallocating street space from cars to buses, bikers, and pedestrians 
(NYCDOT and Midland, 2013).  
25 
 
 
Impact on Equity  
The NACTO Design Guide, “Designing Streets for Kids,” illustrates how 
inaccessible car dominant streets are for kids and people under the age of 16. Streets are 
cities largest continuous network of public space and depending on the available 
transportation options, people can access or are prevented from accessing their 
community and resources. Fast moving traffic, lack of diverse transportation 
infrastructure, noise pollution, poor visibility, and the heat island effect are all barriers 
to children accessing their community. The design guide shows that streets, when 
viewed as public spaces, not just spaces to move cars, can address even basic needs like 
“food, shelter, play, joy, and healthy relationships with others.” By addressing these 
needs through street design, NACTO argues that streets will work better for all 
community members, not just kids.   
In terms of built design interventions, NATCO recommends that streets with 
multi-lane, one-way, designs that have high daily vehicle volumes must reduce the 
number of travel lanes in order to reduce vehicle speeds to under 25 MPH. Multi-lane, 
one-way street designs create high-speed passing opportunities and reduce the visibility 
of street users who are not in cars, which degrades people’s comfort and safety. To 
make more predictable and less stressful transportation options, the NACTO Guide 
suggests reorganizing the street space. Creating floating parking lanes in order to add 
protected bike lanes and reducing the number of car travel lanes reduces the stress of 
street users and attracts street users of all ages and abilities to use active transportation 
options.   
26 
 
 
Transportation options and quality of life  
In Happy City: Transforming our Lives Through Urban Design, Charles 
Montgomery explains that our built environment and the way we experience it are 
inherently linked. In researching for his book, he interviewed the mayor of Bogota, 
Colombia, Enrique Peñalosa. Peñalosa didn’t promise to make Bogotans richer. He was 
elected on the promise of making Bogotans happier. The mayor recognized that Bogota, 
like most cities around the world, had been deeply wounded by the reorientation of the 
public right-of-way to serve private automobiles. What once had been public plazas 
were now parking lots. The streets that children could safely roam and play on were 
now taken over by high-speed car travel. Bogotans were denied the simplest pleasures 
of walking on enjoyable streets, sitting around in public, talking with neighbors and 
friends, playing, and enjoying nature.   
When elected, Peñalosa scrapped the plan for a highway expansion and focused 
the city budget into a bus rapid transit system, hundreds of miles of bikeways, 
sidewalks, public plazas, and green spaces. Three years into his first term, Peñalosa 
instituted “día sin carro” (day without cars), a day when private cars are banned from 
the street. That day, hundreds of thousands of cars stayed put, while Bogotans flooded 
the streets on their own two feet, bikes, or skates. Buses were packed and día sin carro 
was such a hit that Bogotans asked for the day to become an annual tradition. Peñalosa 
claims that, “The most dynamic economies of the twentieth century produced the most 
miserable cities of all. I’m talking about the U.S. of course— Atlanta, Phoenix, Miami, 
cities totally dominated by private cars” (Pg. 9). On the first día sin carro in 2000, 
27 
 
 
pollsters recorded people being more optimistic about their city than they had been in 
years.  
In Palaces for the People: How Social Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, 
Polarization, and the Decline of Civic Life, Eric Klineberg demonstrates that the public 
right-of-way can play an essential role in building community and trust among 
neighbors. He contends that in the public right-of-way, people can interact with others 
from all walks of life in ways that they never would in private establishments. The 
“edges and borders” of private homes and buildings are ideal places for people to 
develop skills for civic engagement, community building and learning (Pg. 87).   
Dedicating public space to social infrastructure has lifesaving impacts as well. 
Klineberg studied the impacts of social infrastructure on survival rates during the 1995 
Chicago summer heatwave. Between July 14 and July 20, 739 people died because of 
the excessive heat. Klineberg conducted over 700 interviews and found that people who 
had close connections to neighbors were more likely to have survived the heatwave. 
Klineberg compared two neighborhoods with similar demographics – Englewood and 
Auburn Gresham – during the heatwave. Both are 99% African American, low-income, 
and had similar proportions of elderly residents. Englewood had 33 deaths per 100,000 
residents, and Auburn Gresham had 3 deaths per 100,000 residents. The difference-
maker, or the lifesaver for Auburn Gresham, Klineberg concluded, was the quality and 
quantity of the neighborhood’s social infrastructure. Or the physical places that shape 
the way people interact (Pg. 1-7). In sectioning off the public right-of-way for private 
automobiles, communities are effectively limiting their capability to interact with each 
other, which weakens our communities’ resilience and civic life in general.   
28 
 
 
Evaluating streets  
There is no one right way to evaluate a street, but there are a lot of good 
precedents for measuring the impact of street designs. The Global Designing Cities 
Initiative outlines suggestions on how to evaluate streets in order to better garner 
community and political support. They recommend surveying street users about the 
quality of the street before and after the redesign in order to understand user perception 
and experience. Taking user counts on the site before and after a redesign is important 
to build a benchmark and measure the impacts of a redesign on street use and function. 
Doing quantitative analysis on these counts is crucial in understanding the use and 
function of the street before and after street redesign (GDCI, 2016).   
GDCI and Todd Litman explain that “traditional” street evaluations only take 
car throughput rates into account as the end-all be-all of street performance. Therefore, 
wider streets with the capacity for higher rates of speed became the goal as cities have 
grown in population (GDCI, 2016; Litman, 2015). In “Evaluating Complete Streets,” 
Litman explains that this type of road design prioritizes the speed and mobility of cars 
over the safety and accessibility of all road users. High rates of speed create barriers for 
non-car users in accessing their community. Conversely, streets with transportation 
options and vehicle speeds under 20 MPH are always beneficial in terms of, “Road and 
parking facility savings, consumer savings and affordability, improved public fitness 
and health, energy conservation, noise and air pollution emission reductions, reduced 
sprawl, and more attractive streetscapes” (Pg. 22).  
In an analysis of factors that enhance street vitality in Shanghai, researchers 
surveyed community members of different neighborhoods to understand what they 
29 
 
 
wanted out of their public rights-of-way. The most influential factors for good quality 
spaces were diverse social functions, mixing of transportation modes, proximity to 
public transit, and ample greenery (Liu et al. 2021).     
In “Evaluating Complete Streets: A Guide for Practitioners,” Smart Growth 
America (SGA) contends that evaluating streets should be very simple. The group 
advocates for reducing complicated mathematical equations traditionally used in 
understanding vehicle levels of service as a key way to understand how a street 
implementation enhances or detracts from a city’s goals. The authors explain simple 
metrics like adding a tree to a street can enhance a city's greenery goals, or adding 
sidewalk and bike lanes enhances a city’s connectivity and accessibility goals (SGA, 
2015).   
Livability  
In doing research for this thesis, I came across the term “livability” in countless 
resources. Climate action plans, transportation plans, and community vision plans often 
aim to enhance “livability,” but few documents actually define the term. In “Framing 
Livability: What is Livability?” Rebecca Lewis and Tyce Herman perform a meta-
analysis of articles, journals, and newspaper clippings that discuss livability. They 
categorize each source based on the usage of the concept of livability as it relates to 
community features, defining the term, demographics, development, environment, 
federal initiatives, health and safety, housing, metrics and indices, social justice and 
equity, and transportation (Herrman and Lewis, 2017).   
30 
 
 
Livability, as discussed in the context of one’s environment, might include a 
discussion of environmental features in a community that improves people’s quality of 
life. In the context of housing, affordability may be discussed with the presence of 
housing options. In the context of transportation and mobility, transportation options 
may be a factor. So, depending on the context in which livability is discussed, the type 
of indicator of livability will change (Tyce Herrman and Rebecca Lewis 2017). The 
researchers found that there is no single conceptual framework that planners use to 
measure livability. Further, the lack of consensus suggests an emptier meaning of the 
concept (Tyce Herrman and Rebecca Lewis 2017). Indicators to measure livability are 
determined by planners and communities and generically placed under the umbrella 
term of “livability.”  However, when referred to in different contexts, livability means 
something different based on a person's age, income, physical ability, and lifestyle 
among other factors (Lampkin, 2014.).  
The most descriptive and holistic definition of livability that I could find is, “An 
individual’s ability to readily access opportunities to improve his or her personal quality 
of life (for commuting, work, education, rest, rejuvenation, etc.)” (Appleyard et al., 
2014). Appleyard et al. expand on this definition and propose a “livability ethics 
framework”, based on moral concepts for planners to measure, understand, and justify 
activities towards the pursuit of livability. The authors claim that in a just society, 
people must be granted equal access to opportunity. An individual's pursuit of an 
improved quality of life can inadvertently degrade access to opportunities for another 
individual. Moreover, policies that may improve livability for one group, but have 
negative consequences like air pollution, noise pollution, the segmentation of 
31 
 
 
neighborhoods, and threats to the safety/health of pedestrians and cyclists, are 
inherently unethical because they deprive the pursuit of livability from more vulnerable 
populations (Appleyard et al., 2014). The researchers developed a set of principles that 
they suggest planners and community members ask themselves to determine whether a 
policy or infrastructure is “ethically livable.” A street is ethically livable if it:  
1. Promotes thriving, not just surviving   
2. Chooses accessibility and exchanges over mobility and speed   
3. Restores choices lost to forced adaptation   
4. Values the needs of society's most vulnerable  
This definition of livability captures not only economic, social, and 
environmental issues but also addresses the individual interests of those in the impacted 
communities. Therefore, these principles create the framework of my methodology.  
   
Methods  
The goal of my research is to understand if the current public right-of-way 
allocation adequately serves all community member’s transportation needs and 
preferences. To inform this understanding I specifically wanted to know if the two-lane, 
one-way, with parking on either side street design enhances the mobility, accessibility, 
and quality of life of those who live adjacent to it and travel it frequently. To gauge how 
this street design meets the needs and preferences of community members, my research 
aims to address three research questions:   
1. What transportation modes dominate Patterson St.?   
32 
 
 
2. Does Patterson St. support transportation options for all community 
members? and   
3. Is Patterson St.'s design a barrier to community members trying to go about 
their lives?  
In order to answer the research questions, I collected both quantitative and 
qualitative data through street user counts, a survey of street users, and a focus group of 
street users.   
Street User Counts Data Description   
To answer research question one, I counted bikers, pedestrians, and cars using 
Patterson St. at each intersection from 13th to 24th avenues between the hours of 
8:30am-10:30am. I conducted the user counts on weekdays in January and February. I 
counted people crossing the street and going through the corridor on the sidewalk. The 
user counts as well as some other observations are presented in Tables 1 and 2 in the 
results section. In the “x” column of the tables I noted the cross street at which I was 
taking data as well as the transportation infrastructure that was present for each mode. 
To track the different modes and the number of users, I used a helpful app called 
“Counter +.” The app (Figure 18) allowed me to input multiple variables and count 
them at the same time. For each intersection, I counted “Cars Across,” “Bikes Across,” 
“Pedestrians Across,” and “Cars Through,” “Bikes Through,” and “Pedestrians 
Through.”  
 
 
 
 
33 
 
 
Figure 18. Screenshot of “Counter +”  
 
  
The user counts were analyzed in the results section by calculating the 
proportion of cars, bikes, and pedestrians using the street. To calculate the percentage of 
each mode using the street I used this simple formula:     
� # 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑚𝑚𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑡𝑡𝑜𝑜𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑡𝑝𝑝 # 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑜𝑜𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 𝑡𝑡𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑜𝑜𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 𝑜𝑜𝑎𝑎 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑎𝑎𝑜𝑜𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢ℎ 𝑎𝑎𝑜𝑜𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑎𝑢𝑢𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑎𝑎�  ×  100 % 
   
  Understanding which mode of transportation is used most on Patterson St. 
reveals how people feel most comfortable traveling through and across the corridor and 
which mode users the street is designed for. It’s also important to have this data in order 
to compare user counts to create a baseline should there be a street design intervention.  
34 
 
 
Survey Description  
To answer the second research question, “Does Patterson St. support 
transportation options for all community members?” I distributed a Qualtrics survey to 
YMCA members and Spencerview Apartment residents. I limited the survey to people 
who go to the YMCA and residents of Spencerview Apartments because they are more 
likely to have families and to support themselves financially. The demographic of more 
traditional students living on Patterson St. may be younger, more likely to be supported 
by their parents, and are likely to be only responsible for taking care of themselves (as 
opposed to supporting a family) and were therefore excluded from taking the survey or 
participating in the focus group. Using the Spencerview Apt. residents and members of 
the YMCA as a proxy for the larger community is more demonstrative of how the street 
both meets and hinders the diverse needs and preferences of the larger community since 
this diverse population tends to make a more diverse array of trips and may have 
families that rely on them financially and for navigating their environments. The 
targeted population is also likely to have more experiences navigating Patterson St. (i.e. 
commuting using different transportation modes, crossing the street with families or 
disabilities, experiencing safety issues, shopping, etc.) and may have well-informed 
views on the traffic, safety and other issues associated with the livability associated with 
Patterson Street.   
The survey was conducted on Qualtrics. A $10 Safeway gift card was offered to 
people as compensation and an incentive to take the survey. The survey took 10-15 
minutes to complete on average. Of the 56 people who started taking the survey, 46 
people completed it, and 10 partially completed it. The survey was sent out to 500 
35 
 
 
Spencerview residents and flyers were distributed at the YMCA. The questions were 
formulated to address answering the sub questions of the second research question: 
“Does the corridor promote thriving, not just surviving? Does the corridor opt for 
accessibility and exchanges over mobility and speed? Does the corridor restore choices 
lost to forced adaptation? Does the corridor value the needs of society's most 
vulnerable?” (Appleyard et al. 2014). The survey questions can be viewed by clicking 
this link or the ones above.  
Focus Group Description  
At the end of the survey, people who were interested in participating in a focus 
group for an additional $30 Safeway gift card were given the opportunity to follow a 
link to another Qualtrics survey with more information about the focus group and a text 
box to list their email if they were interested in participating. The group was limited to 
10 people and was to last no longer than an hour and a half. The group was conducted 
via Zoom meeting and an audio recording was taken for later reference. The focus 
group’s aim was to understand the third research question “Is Patterson St. a barrier to 
community members trying to go about their lives?” and to further understand their 
views on the study’s fundamental questions about the extent to which the corridor 
promotes thriving, not just surviving, opts for accessibility and exchanges over mobility 
and speed, restores choices lost to forced adaptation, and values the needs of society’s 
most vulnerable.  
  
36 
 
 
Results  
Street User Counts  
The results of the street user counts indicated a high usage rate by cars, 
compared to pedestrians and bikers. The results of the Patterson St. user counts are 
displayed in Table 1 (Users traveling through Patterson) and Table 2 (Users crossing 
Patterson). During the 20 total hours of street user counts, 7,651 people traveled through 
Patterson St. and 2,496 people crossed Patterson St. Cars were by far the most prevalent 
mode of travel through the corridor (93%) as well as across the corridor (69%). 
Walking was the second most popular mode of travel through the corridor (6%) as well 
as across it (24%). Finally, biking was the least popular mode of transportation through 
the corridor (1%) and across the corridor (7%). Figures 14-17 show the street usage 
counts and rates during the 20 total hours of data collection.   
Figure 19. Users Traveling through Patterson (North to South) 
               
  
37 
 
 
Figure 20. Percentage of street users traveling through Patterson St.
 
  
  
  
Figure 21. Users Traveling across Patterson St. (East and West)  
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
38 
 
 
Figure 22. Percentage of street users traveling across Patterson St.   
 
  
Street Functions and Observations   
Throughout the 20 hours of data collection over 10 days, I noticed several trends 
among users of the street. At different intersections, I witnessed 6 near misses between 
people trying to cross and people in cars driving through. The people in cars and on 
bikes trying to cross the street would maneuver forward a couple of feet into the 
intersection to be able to see past the parked cars and view oncoming traffic. Oncoming 
traffic would either swerve to avoid the crossing car/bike or break suddenly. Similar 
near misses occurred with pedestrians trying to cross Patterson St. In order to see 
oncoming traffic, pedestrians would step into the intersection to be able to look around 
the parked cars blocking their view of oncoming traffic from the sidewalk. Each 
incident was incredibly stressful for me as a witness. I can only imagine how the people 
involved were feeling at the time.    
39 
 
 
Regardless of these near misses, another statistic I started taking note of was the 
number of bikers biking on the sidewalk instead of the street. Sixty-seven of the 77 
bikers going through the corridor were biking on the sidewalk. Two of the other 10 
were using electric bikes, 2 of them were obviously racing bikers wearing all lycra, 3 of 
the others were biking the wrong way down the corridors and the remaining 3 were 
skateboarding. A mode which requires smooth and consistent pavement.  
 
 
 
Bike count Ped count Car count 
Bike Ped (8:30- (8:30- (8:30-
Block  Infrastructure  Infrastructure  Car Infrastructure  10:30am)  10:30am)  10:30am)  
13th- 2 travel lanes, parking 31 (25 on 
14th  none  sidewalks  either side  sidewalk)  58  845  
14th- 2 travel lanes, parking 5 (4 on 
15th  none  sidewalks  either side  sidewalk)  54  858  
15th- 2 travel lanes, parking 2 (2 on 
16th  none  sidewalks  either side  sidewalk)  39  727  
16th- 2 travel lanes, parking 6 (5 on 
17th  none  sidewalks  either side  sidewalk)  80  836  
17th- 2 travel lanes, parking 3 (3 on 
18th  none  sidewalks  either side  sidewalk)  40  795  
18th- 2 travel lanes, parking 
19th  none  sidewalks  either side  0  33  808  
19th- 11 (10 on 
20th  none  sidewalks  2 travel lanes  sidewalk)  41  709  
40 
 
 
20th- 2 travel lanes, parking 5 (4 on 
22nd  none  sidewalks  east side  sidewalk)  38  741  
22nd- 2 travel lanes, parking 8 (8 on 
23rd  none  sidewalks  either side  sidewalk)  37  687  
  
23rd- 2 travel lanes, parking 6 (6 on   
24th  none  sidewalks  either side  sidewalk)  28  120  
 
 
 
Table 1. Patterson St. User Mode Counts Traveling Through the Corridor  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 2. Patterson St. User Mode Counts Traveling Across the Corridor  
Bike count Ped count Car count 
Bike  Ped Car (8:30- (8:30- (8:30-
Intersections  infrastructure  Infrastructure  infrastructure  10:30am)  10:30am)  10:30am)  
2-way cycle Crosswalks, ped 
13th and track, bike crossing lights, Stop lines, car 
Patterson  traffic lights  curb cuts  traffic lights  89  173  328  
14th and stop signs (west 
Patterson  sharrows  curb cuts  and East)  5  53  78  
15th and stop signs (west 
Patterson  sharrows  curb cuts  and East)  13  45  38  
16th and stop signs (west 
Patterson  nothing  curb cuts  and East)  7  57  26  
17th and stop signs (west 
Patterson  nothing  curb cuts  and East)  8  55  44  
41 
 
 
18th and dotted bike crosswalks, curb traffic lights (all 
Patterson  lanes  cuts  four directions)  22  68  1018  
19th and crosswalks, curb traffic lights West 
Patterson  nothing  cuts  and east)  12  45  145  
Raised crosswalk, traffic light 
pedestrian (pedestrian 
activated crossing activated), yield 
YMCA and light (east and ground markings 
Patterson  nothing  west)  (Going South)  4  28  24  
22nd and curb cuts on the stop signs (West 
Patterson  nothing  East side  and East)  3  10  19  
One lane 
23rd and continues straight, 
Patterson  nothing  Sidewalk median  two lanes curve   13  37  0  
  
Survey Results: Street User Experience  
The survey was designed to gauge the street user’s and the street user’s families 
experience using Patterson St. They were asked questions about their current modes of 
transportation while navigating their corridor and their ideal modes of transportation 
while navigating the corridor if their preferences were met by the built design. They 
were also asked questions about stress levels while navigating Patterson St. and their 
children’s experiences navigating the street. The analysis of the survey results is 
reported in points 1-14. 
1. Survey respondent's actual used modes vs. preferred modes.   
a. If the street users’ transportation mode preferences were accommodated 
by the infrastructure available, the street users would ideally drive 18% 
less than their current amount of driving on the corridor. They would 
42 
 
 
choose to take the bus 7% more, they would bike 12% more, and they 
would walk 1% less than their current amount. (Table 3.)  
  
Table 3. Survey respondents actual vs. preferred % of trips by different modes  
Average % of trips people currently and would like to drive, 
walk, bike, bus?  
Mode  Currently  Ideally  
Drive  42.85%  24.62%  
Bus  11.92%  18.36%  
Bike  16.26%  28.64%  
Walk  26.21  25.36%  
Other  2.84%  3.11%  
2. Of the 46 people who completed the survey, 36 people indicated that they 
have access to a car and drive often. In other words, while 86% of survey 
takers have access to a car, only 24% prefer driving as their regular mode of 
transportation. 
 
3. Sixty-five percent of survey respondents reported that if Patterson St. were 
redesigned to meet their transportation preferences, it is very likely or likely 
that they would decide to use a different mode of transportation. 30% of 
those responses indicated that Patterson St. is a barrier to them and their 
families.   
 
4. How do parents and their families experience Patterson St.?  
a. Thirty seven percent of survey takers were parents with school-aged 
children. Of the parents, 65% of them drive their children to school 
and/or extracurriculars 5 or more times per week. The other 6 
43 
 
 
children either walk or take a school bus. None of the parents 
indicated that their children bike.   
  
5. Only 35% of the parents with school age children living with them who took 
the survey answered the question regarding how high traffic speeds impact 
their children’s ability to access destinations safely and independently. 
However, of the 6 responses to the question, 5 parents indicated that the high 
speed of traffic on Patterson St. somewhat deters to extremely deters their 
children from accessing destinations safely and independently by walking, 
biking, and busing. One parent indicated that the high speed of traffic does 
not deter their children from accessing destinations by walking, biking or 
busing.   
  
6. Again, only 6 parents answered the question asking at what age they feel 
comfortable letting their children use Patterson St. independently. Three of 
them said that they would let their child travel independently at 7, one said 8, 
one said 13, and one said 16 years old.   
  
7. Once more, only 35% of the parents who took the survey answered the 
question asking about how their children’s quality of life might be impacted 
by improvements in biking, walking and busing infrastructure. However, of 
the 6 responses to the question, 5 parents indicated that improvements to 
biking, walking and busing infrastructure would improve their children’s 
44 
 
 
quality of life. 1 parent indicated that improvements to biking and walking 
infrastructure wouldn’t improve their quality of life and the same parent 
didn’t respond to how busing improvements might improve their child’s 
quality of life.  
  
8. Speed of oncoming traffic on Patterson St. and user comfort.  
a. Nineteen out of 22 drivers who answered the survey experience a 
little to a considerable amount of stress induced by the speed of 
traffic while crossing Patterson St. Three of them experience no 
stress, and none of them experience extreme stress.   
  
9. Eight of 9 bus riders experience a little to a considerable amount of stress, 
one of them experiences no stress and none of them experience extreme 
stress while crossing Patterson St.   
  
10. Sixteen of 19 bikers experience a little to a considerable amount of stress, 
none of them experience no stress, and 3 of them experience extreme stress 
while crossing Patterson St.   
  
11. Finally, 26 of the 30 walkers experience a little to a considerable amount of 
stress, 1 of them experiences no stress, and 3 of them experience extreme 
stress while crossing Patterson St. because of the high speed of traffic.  
  
45 
 
 
12. In total, there were 80 responses to this question. Many of the survey takers 
travel by multiple modes, hence the higher number of responses than 
respondents. Of those 80 responses, only 4 recorded no stress while crossing 
Patterson St. Nearly everyone experiences stress while using Patterson St. no 
matter their mode of transportation. 
  
13. Built environment, quality of life and experience on Patterson St.   
a. The question regarding how improvements to Patterson St. 
transportation infrastructure might impact users’ quality of life had a 
63% response rate. Perhaps putting this question earlier in the survey 
would have generated a higher response rate. Regardless, of the 29 
respondents to this question, 90% indicated that improvements to the 
walking facilities would improve their quality of life, 100% indicated 
that improvements to bike facilities would improve their quality of 
life and 100% indicated that improvements to bus facilities would 
improve their quality of life.   
b. The top two most impactful sidewalk improvements that people 
indicated would enhance their experience using Patterson St. are 
wider sidewalks, and smoother sidewalks (28 and 25 people 
respectively). Pedestrians appeared to be less concerned about 
creating more places to rest, less noise, and more civic art. 
Respectively, 18, 17, and 15 pedestrians indicated that these 
improvements would enhance their experience using Patterson St.. 
46 
 
 
Thereby suggesting that these would be “nice to have” improvements 
as opposed to high priorities.  
c. Bikers indicated that the most impactful improvements to the bike 
infrastructure on Patterson St. would be wide protected bike paths, 
slower traffic speeds, and smoother pavement. Respectively, 22, 22, 
and 20 bikers indicated that these improvements would enhance their 
experience using Patterson St. Bikers cared moderately less about 
less car traffic, more bike parking and less car parking with 19, 18, 
and 14 of them, respectively, indicating that these improvements 
would enhance their experience using the street.   
d. Bus users indicated that the most impactful improvements to using 
the bus on Patterson St. are more frequent buses, and more 
comfortable bus stops. 23 and 22 users indicated that these 
improvements would enhance their experience. Bus users on 
Patterson St. care substantially less about buses being easier to board, 
the environment being less noisy, having more civic art, and more 
tree coverage. 13, 12, 12, and 11 users indicated that these 
improvements would enhance their busing experience on Patterson 
St.   
  
14. While not expressly asked in the survey, some of the focus group participants 
expressed concern about the lack of diverse route options from the bus stops 
available on Patterson St.  
47 
 
 
Focus Group Results: Street User Perception  
Safety concerns while using Patterson St:  
No matter the mode of transportation being used by participants of the focus 
group, there was broad consensus about always feeling uncomfortable using Patterson 
St. While driving. The participants expressed concern about potentially hitting a parked 
car and as a result they sometimes drive partially into the other driving lane to avoid 
hitting poorly parked cars that stick out into the driving lanes. Participants also felt 
anxious about hitting pedestrians, bikers, or cars trying to cross Patterson St. as they 
may not be able to see people trying to cross and may be going too fast to stop in time if 
someone decides to cross suddenly.   
On the flip side of this interaction, participants also felt really uncomfortable 
while crossing Patterson St. especially when biking and walking. One participant 
described her experience trying to walk across Patterson St. as follows:   
“I feel unsafe when I'm trying to cross Patterson because cars are parked 
all along the street and you can't really see when something's coming, so 
I kind of have to do like a dance to try and figure out what the flow of 
traffic is like and you're kind of jumping out into it when you think it 
might be best.”   
  
Other participants described the same experience and reported a lack of trust in 
car drivers to stop when they’re at an intersection. One participant described it as a lack 
of power compared to people in cars while using the street.   
Some participants were concerned about their children and other family 
members’ safety. They talked about Patterson St. as a barrier to the well-being of their 
more vulnerable family members because of the high speed and high volume of traffic.   
48 
 
 
“On all four sides Patterson is really problematic for children and I do 
have a mother and father in-law who live on Patterson St. two blocks 
down and one of them is in a wheelchair and sometimes goes on walks 
and some of the curbs connecting the sidewalks are really in need of 
repair and development. So for both children and seniors there are some 
major accessibility issues.”  
  
“My son is a teenager and can travel on Patterson by himself now 
because he’s aware of the dangers but when he has to cross, I’ll generally 
remind him to cross at the YMCA crosswalk and so he doesn’t cross in 
front of Spencerview because it’s very dangerous.”  
  
Other participants were concerned about their own safety. Again, mostly due to 
the high speed of traffic, high traffic volumes, the lack of visibility to oncoming traffic 
while crossing the street, and the lack of dedicated bike lanes. Three different 
participants recount their experiences as follows:  
 “I walk to campus, I bike and drive sometimes so I kind of have an 
overview of the different scenarios and I just noticed a lot of issues with 
that street. It scares me to cross it. I'm anxious and so I'd like to make it 
easier for the people…. it's just scary and I have biked before on the 
sidewalk and that's also scary because there are pedestrians and it's just 
not where bikes should be on Patterson Street. And the good thing is you 
have that path along the River on the other side of South Eugene High 
School so that's where I think people bike so you know but I still think 
that would be, that would be good to have on Patterson.”  
  
“I don’t know how to ride a bicycle and I was trying to learn from one of 
the seniors living in the community and I am afraid because of the traffic 
so I think if we had a separate lane it would be easier because there is 
always a lot of cars passing by and they move faster than the speed of 
cars back home. In India we had separate lanes where we could practice 
or like streets where we didn’t have too many cars but here it kind of 
scares me. I haven't learned how to cycle yet because I am afraid I will 
get hit by a car.”  
  
49 
 
 
“Solving the general visibility issue that you have as a pedestrian and 
even a driver [would make a difference]. And the sidewalks are terrible. 
Anyone who doesn’t have very sure footing I don’t think should walk on 
those sidewalks…. I don’t feel unsafe in a crime state of mind. It's just 
fast cars, uneven sidewalks, like it's chaos.”   
  
Less sure bikers and walkers are especially deterred from biking and walking 
because of the lack of comfortable bike lanes and sidewalks.  
Issues of time and convenience   
Many participants feel let down by the lack of bus route options available on 
Patterson St. and the infrequency of the available buses. Almost everyone had a story 
about waiting an hour or more to catch a bus on Patterson St. Participants spoke about 
their concerns in terms of the time it costs them to be reliant on the bus. Experiences are 
recounted as follows:  
“I don’t own a car and I think the transportation should be better. The 
buses should be more frequent ‘cuz if I miss the bus I’m waiting an hour 
for another. Also maybe more [street] light because once I was catching 
the bus at night in the winter and they didn’t see me and I had to get the 
next one which was after another hour.”  
  
“For example I went to the Eugene table tennis club to play ping pong. 
My son and I, if we went to the club, our public transportation time 
would be longer than walking there. It’s ridiculous. Especially in winter 
and spring, the weather is rainy and cold and the time consumption is 
prevalent. So I had to buy the car. And also I think the [bikeshare 
system] is necessary to improve. When I go to the university I usually 
ride the [bikeshare] bicycle but on a school day, sometimes I go to the 
[station at the] YMCA and there are no bicycles available so I have to 
walk to another station and I’d be late for my class.”  
  
50 
 
 
Other participants recounted wanting to use another mode of transportation aside 
from their car but choose to drive because it’s the more convenient, time efficient, and 
safe option. Their experiences are quoted below:   
“I’ll decide I’m going to go to the gym and it’s way too much of a hassle 
to catch the bus that goes once every hour and if I don’t finish my 
workout in an hour then I have to wait for another bus that goes every 
hour so it just makes more sense to drive. More convenient.”  
  
“That does happen to me as well, mainly, when I decide to drive instead 
of walk, it’s because Patterson happens to be the most convenient route 
and I don’t want to take a longer way, and I just don’t want to be 
breathing in fumes or be put in the way of other dangers.”  
  
“I think a car is very convenient and necessary in Eugene. I bought my 
car this year. During the previous two years I spent a lot of time waiting 
for transportation and like the others said, if I missed one bus I would 
have to wait almost an hour for another. Another reason is if I want to go 
to some grocery store, if I took the bus, it would take an hour and if I 
took a car it might be 20 minutes.”  
  
“Maybe they could add more bus routes…on the weekends. So that bus 
goes directly from our community directly to some bigger grocery stores 
like Walmart on West 11th. Maybe they can add bus routes on weekends 
and off school time. I think that would be more convenient, especially 
for international students.”  
  
Participants feel underserved by the transportation options available. The lack of 
options costs them time and they adapt by buying cars and using less desirable, more 
expensive and polluting modes like driving.   
51 
 
 
More transportation options will improve quality of life  
When I asked participants how street improvements might impact their quality 
of life, they generally felt like they would see a remarkable improvement if their 
preferences were accommodated. Their experiences are recounted as follows:  
“Yeah I think I would be able to see family more often and even more 
incentivized to go out and get a little more fresh air get more physical 
activity and engage and a little more with the community and there are a 
lot of restaurants on the street too that I’d visit more often so it might 
have some economic impact as well.”  
  
“I think that my personal quality of life would greatly improve with 
increasing the amount of public transportation that's available, more 
frequent bus routes and solving the general visibility issue that you know 
you have as a pedestrian and even a driver. And the sidewalks are 
terrible.”  
  
“I feel safer walking on the sidewalks of Amazon rather than 
[Patterson]....crossing the streets are also much easier there and if we had 
a separate bike lane [on Patterson] it would at least improve my quality 
of life because I’m really scared of biking along Patterson and I wouldn’t 
have to depend on the bus as much because it’s not too frequent.”  
  
“I think [my in-laws quality of life] would improve for a few reasons: 1. 
Just the actual street being more developed and safer would create less 
stress and the actual sidewalks being easier to traverse and easier to 
navigate. I do want to emphasize the weather issue again. When it rains 
the puddles get really bad and there’s a lot of deep permeable soil next to 
the sidewalks….so people who are in a wheelchair or not able to go out 
walking might be able to do so more if there are some improvements. 
And that's in terms of general comfortability and actual safety.”  
  
52 
 
 
Reducing personal carbon footprint   
As we were wrapping up the focus group, the conversation turned to people’s 
concerns about climate change. I asked how often people make transportation choices 
based on minimizing their carbon footprint? The participants largely expressed wanting 
to make transportation choices that emit fewer greenhouse gasses but feel like they’re 
deterred from doing so because of the lack of appropriate and safe biking, walking and 
busing infrastructure. Their experiences and thoughts are recorded below:  
“I drive more often than I would definitely like to. I would like to not 
drive at all but it's just not feasible or realistic for me to expect that. 
Things being the way they are right now.”  
  
“I know I feel like if the city really wanted to reduce its carbon footprint 
it would make it easier to not drive a car than to drive a car you know I'm 
saying like it would be easier to take the bus or walk. But I don’t really 
see that being a near future situation. “  
  
“Eugene touts itself as the biking capital of Oregon and it still is very 
very car-centric and if you're not like, if you don't have a car you 
automatically become a class of citizen who doesn’t have as many rights 
as the ones with cars because a lot of your power is getting diminished. 
Particularly your purchasing power, [inaudible] power and going to 
places for leisure and a lot of other things. It's not a very livable city for 
people who cannot drive.”  
  
A couple of the international participants compared their experiences living on 
Patterson St. to their experiences in their hometowns:   
“Having lived in other cities in the U.S., [the available transportation 
options are] not too bad in Eugene. At least where I live in Spencerview 
we have more bike lanes and buses and I think the city is trying to be 
more eco-friendly in that way. But where I come from in Europe, it's 
very different. We don’t drive as much in city centers and sometimes 
you have days where cars are forbidden or places where cars are 
53 
 
 
forbidden but I was thinking about it before and I just don't think that 
would work in Eugene but there’s always ways to make something more. 
I think the biggest thing is to change people's perception of ‘oh I need a 
car, I cannot function without one’. And sometimes it's true like the 
grocery store is far away but there are definitely things that can be done. 
Like you know that street downtown on Broadway that is purley 
pedestrian? Things like that I think would change a little bit. I’m sure 
there are studies done about this.”  
  
“I think there are few options for people who take public transportation 
to reduce their gasoline consumption. As I previously mentioned, I 
bought my car this year but the previous two years I didn't buy a car. I 
had to buy the car….My hometown in China is also a small town but the 
public transportation is very convenient and a lot of people are 
concerned about climate change so in our home town more people prefer 
to take public transportation. So yeah, social transportation can be 
improved.”  
  
In the first response, I thought it was telling of community members' change in 
attitude toward more active modes of transportation that the participant initially said 
that road closures to cars wouldn’t work in Eugene but then went on to refer to the road 
closure downtown as an option to reduce car use. Also notable in the second quote, the 
participant had to adapt to the built environment of Patterson St. and Eugene by buying 
a car. They said multiple times that they felt like they had to buy the car in order to be 
socially active and to navigate their everyday life punctually.   
Participant requests for Patterson St. improvements  
As pedestrians, bikers and bus users, participants wanted slower/less car traffic 
on the street, and to be more visible to oncoming traffic. They wanted to feel safer 
walking, and biking on the street and to have more frequent/more diverse bus route 
options. They thought crosswalks at intersections, protected bike lanes, more bikeshare 
54 
 
 
bikes at the YMCA station, smoother/wider sidewalks, curb cuts joining sidewalks 
together, better street lighting in the winter, and, again, more frequent and diverse bus 
route options, would improve their quality of life and reduce the dependence on owning 
a car. Many community members cope with the lack of transportation options on 
Patterson St. by driving when they would rather bike, walk, or bus.   
  
  
55 
 
 
Conclusion  
My research aimed to understand if the current public right-of-way allocation 
adequately serves all community members’ transportation needs and preferences. Car 
infrastructure and car users dominate Patterson St. Nearly 70% of the public right-of-
way is dedicated to car usage between 13th and 24th Avenues. This dominant 
dedication to car infrastructure has real implications regarding how community 
members use the street. Ninety three percent of people who travel through Patterson St. 
drive and 69% of people who travel across Patterson St. drive. In the Patterson St. 
survey, community members reported wanting to drive significantly less, and people in 
the focus group confirmed that Patterson St. is a barrier to biking, walking, and busing 
more.   
Two-lane, one-way, streets like Patterson St. are overbuilt to support car users 
and underserve a significant market of community members who cannot, or do not want 
to drive. These streets are highway-like; they are built for speed, not mobility and 
accessibility (Appleyard et al., 2014; Tumlin, 2012) – conclusions consistent with my 
study of Patterson St. They create an accessibility barrier to community members and 
induce car trips that could be replaced with less carbon-intensive modes if there were 
transportation infrastructure to support comfortable, safe, and convenient biking, 
walking, and busing.   
Community members adapt to the lack of reasonable biking infrastructure on 
Patterson St. by biking on the sidewalk and traveling by car. Many view Patterson St. as 
a missing link between their origin and destination. They also view the lack of 
transportation options on Patterson St. as a missing link for connecting to reasonable 
56 
 
 
bike infrastructure like the Ruth Bascom River Path, Alder St. Greenway and bikeway, 
the 13th St. bikeway, and the Amazon shared-use path. Those who cannot drive, cannot 
afford, or do not want to drive are not valued by Patterson street’s design as evidenced 
by the lack of representation of bikers, pedestrians and bus users compared to car users.   
Community members often choose to drive when they would rather walk 
because of a lack of alternative transportation options or concerns about safety. People 
reported poor quality sidewalks as a deterrent for their motivation to walk places. 
Sidewalks are too narrow, not smooth, lacking curb cuts, and are often flooded with 
water and debris. Those with unsure footing, or in wheelchairs, are deterred from using 
the public right-of-way safely and independently. Community members also cited the 
lack of safe places to cross Patterson St. and low visibility to oncoming traffic as 
barriers to walking more. 
Community members also drive when they would rather take the bus. People 
reported infrequent buses and a lack of diverse routes as their main deterrent from using 
the bus more. If a user misses the bus, they have to wait almost a full hour for the next 
one. Community members who frequently use the bus reported an inordinate amount of 
time being spent waiting for public transportation, taking a negative toll on their quality 
of life. They ask that if the city can’t provide more frequent bus options, then at least 
they could provide protected bike lanes, and more crosswalks on Patterson St. so they 
can connect more comfortably to better biking and walking environments in Eugene.   
The public right-of-way on Patterson St. prioritizes the speed of cars and 
undervalues mobility and accessibility of all community members. Undervalued 
community members include low-income individuals, children, those with disabilities, 
57 
 
 
the elderly, and others who do not own or cannot operate a car. Community members 
would drive less, and see an increased quality of life with more transportation options 
provided on Patterson St.   
Patterson St. upholds an auto-centric status quo that negatively impacts many in 
the community from an economic, social, time management, environmental, and safety 
perspective. The street design perpetuates a lifestyle tied to costly car ownership as a 
means of access to the community and to independence. Patterson St., and streets like it, 
force community members to adapt to an expensive lifestyle by purchasing and 
maintaining cars, and using cars when they would just as soon, or rather, use an active 
mode that emits far fewer GHG emissions. To prevent or reduce the impacts of climate 
change, the design of our streets should be retrofitted to make our public rights-of-way 
navigable to encourage less carbon-intensive modes of transport like busing, biking, and 
walking. 
Patterson St. is overbuilt to support the movement and storage of private cars 
and underserves the community.  Allocating more of the public right-of-way to 
protected bike infrastructure, and bus infrastructure, and enhancing existing pedestrian 
infrastructure will slow car speeds, and encourage more non-car trips.  
 
This research shows that in the views of the respondents, these enhancements could 
better serve the needs and preferences of the community by improving the safety, 
economic health, independence, and quality of life in this neighborhood and for the 
larger Eugene community.    
58 
 
 
Bibliography 
“60 Years of Urban Change.” 2016. The Institute for Quality Communities (blog). 
February 29, 2016. /urbanchange/.  
 
Appleyard, Bruce, Christopher E. Ferrell, Michael A. Carroll, and Matthew Taecker. 
2014. “Toward Livability Ethics: A Framework to Guide Planning, Design, and 
Engineering Decisions.” Transportation Research Record 2403 (1): 62–71. 
https://doi.org/10.3141/2403-08. 
  
“Automobile Dependency: An Unequal Burden.” n.d. Accessed April 28, 2022. 
https://www.planetizen.com/blogs/111535-automobile-dependency-unequal-
burden. 
  
Bordenkircher, Brandon, and Riley O’Neil. 2021. “Mobility Leaders Assess 5 Years of 
E-Scooters, and Draw Insights from the Chicago Pilots.” Streetsblog Chicago 
(blog). December 1, 2021. https://chi.streetsblog.org/2021/11/30/mobility-
leaders-assess-5-years-of-e-scooters-and-draw-insights-from-the-chicago-pilots/. 
 
Caiazzo, Fabio, Akshay Ashok, Ian A. Waitz, Steve H. L. Yim, and Steven R. H. 
Barrett. 2013. “Air Pollution and Early Deaths in the United States. Part I: 
Quantifying the Impact of Major Sectors in 2005.” Atmospheric Environment 79 
(November): 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2013.05.081. 
  
CDC. 2020. “Road Traffic Injuries and Deaths—A Global Problem.” Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention. December 14, 2020. 
https://www.cdc.gov/injury/features/global-road-safety/index.html. 
 
City of Eugene. 2017. “Eugene 2035 Transportation System Plan | Eugene, OR 
Website.” February 2017. https://www.eugene-or.gov/3941/2035-
Transportation-System-Plan. 
 
City of Eugene. 2017. “Envision Eugene | Eugene, OR Website.” June 2017. 
https://www.eugene-or.gov/760/Envision-Eugene. 
  
Cohen, Stuart. 2017. “Can We Advance Social Equity with Shared, Autonomous and 
Electric Vehicles?” Policy Brief. UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies. 
 
59 
 
 
Heydari, Shahram, Luis F. Miranda-Moreno, and Fu Liping. 2014. “Speed Limit 
Reduction in Urban Areas: A before–after Study Using Bayesian Generalized 
Mixed Linear Models.” Accident Analysis & Prevention 73 (December): 252–
61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2014.09.013. 
  
Krauss, Louis. n.d. “Police Identify 17-Year-Old Driver in Monday’s Fatal Car Crash.” 
The Register-Guard. Accessed April 27, 2022. 
https://www.registerguard.com/story/news/2021/04/20/police-investigating-
fatal-crash-eugene/7301327002/. 
  
Lampkin, Rodney Harrell, Jana Lynott, Shannon Guzman AARP Public Policy 
Institute; Cheryl. n.d. “What Is Livable? Community Preferences of Older 
Adults.” AARP. Accessed May 11, 2021. 
https://www.aarp.org/ppi/issues/livable-communities/info-2015/what-is-livable-
AARP-ppi-liv-com.html. 
 
 Litman, Todd. 2015. “The Value of Designing Roads For Diverse Modes, Users and 
Activities,” 29. 
 
Liu et al. 2021. “Quantitative Evaluation on Street Vitality: A Case Study of Zhoujiadu 
Community in Shanghai.”  
 
“NSC Preliminary Estimates: Motor Vehicle Deaths Continue to Skyrocket as More 
Vehicles Return to the Roads - National Safety Council.” 2021. National Saftey 
Council. 2021. https://www.nsc.org/newsroom/nsc-preliminary-estimates-
motor-vehicle-deaths-con. 
  
O’Neill, Desmond, Elizabeth Walshe, Daniel Romer, and Flaura Winston. 2019. 
“Transportation Equity, Health, and Aging: A Novel Approach to Healthy 
Longevity with Benefits Across the Life Span.” NAM Perspectives, December. 
https://doi.org/10.31478/201912a. 
 
Riggs, William. 2019. “Perception of Safety and Cycling Behaviour on Varying Street 
Typologies: Opportunities for Behavioural Economics and Design.” 
Transportation Research Procedia, Urban Mobility – Shaping the Future 
Together mobil.TUM 2018 – International Scientific Conference on Mobility and 
Transport Conference Proceedings, 41 (January): 204–18. 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trpro.2019.09.039. 
  
60 
 
 
Riggs, William, and John I. Gilderbloom. 2017. “The Economic and Social Impact of 
One-Way Street Design and Performance on Neighborhood Livability.” In . 
https://trid.trb.org/view/1439700. 
 
Sanchez, Thomas. 2003. “MOVING TO EQUITY: Addressing Inequitable Effects of 
Transportation Policies on Minorities.” Center for Community Change and The 
Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, 24–25.  
 
Thompson, Clive. 2014. “When Pedestrians Ruled the Streets.” Smithsonian Magazine. 
June,2014.https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/when-pedestrians-
ruled-streets-180953396/. 
 
Tyce Herrman, and Rebecca Lewis. 2017. “Framing Livability: What Is Livability?” 
University of Oregon, Sustainable Cities Initative.  
 
 
 
61