Car-dependent infrastructure is worse for local businesses.

Walkability is proven to increase economic prosperity.

Starting in the early 1990s, and especially gaining momentum in the 2000s and 2010s, Americans have been not only preferentially moving to cities, but living in dense, walkable urban environments. This phenomenon has been termed the Urban Revival, reversing the long-held trend of wealthy people moving to the suburbs. While cities are largely expensive, this seems to be due to an undersupply of urban housing: almost 70% of American homes are single-family houses, even though more than half of Americans would prefer to live in multi-family housing – and 80% would be willing to pay more – if it means they could live in a walkable area.

The move towards urban walkable living has largely driven by “featureful cities” or the Resort model of cities: living places with more walkable amenities – nearby coffee shops, grocery stores, neighborhood bars, and other entertainment options – have higher land value and disproportionately higher economic output. By contrast, even though housing may be cheaper in car-dependent places, living there is not: the extremely high cost of automobile ownership actually makes America’s traditionally more expensive but walkable cities more affordable than places with less transit, leaving residents with more disposable income.

An exhaustive analysis by the Washington Post found that places with more drivers have significantly more national chain restaurants and fewer independent local restaurants, a phenomenon termed “McCities”. This makes sense; when you’re flying by at 70kph on a road separated from the business by a parking moat, there’s no chance to stop, slow down, and window shop a new or unfamiliar business, and people are more likely to rely on familiar experiences and branding. This is problematic because chain restaurants sap money from local economies, whereas shopping locally provides significant local benefits.

In one joke, Jim Matthews of the Rail Passengers Association notes that “trains don’t carry people, they carry wallets.” Due to the increasing preference for walkability, and since active transportation users spend less to travel because they’re not paying for expensive cars, the area within a 500 meter walkshed of rail transit stations are part of thriving urban centers that benefit the local economy. By having quality transit to your community, you’ll be guaranteed people will stop by and spend money.

In another joke, it’s noted that you know where the train went “because it left tracks.” While it is often noted that trains can’t be easily swerve around a poorly-parked car, it is that very permanence that leads to more business and higher property values in the vicinity of rail transit. A train track signifies a permanent commitment to carry potential customers on that route, but a fickle bus can be rerouted with as little effort as placing a tarp over the sign. Additionally, train-vehicle conflicts can be reduced with proper street or grade crossing design, commuters significantly prefer traveling by rail than bus, and fixed routes provide more stable, predictable development potential. As a result, investment in transit causes increased sales for nearby businesses, and Transit-Oriented Development allows businesses to capture the value of active transportation savings in the vicinity of stations.

Unfortunately, not many business owners support walkability, and routinely overestimate the percentage of customers who would visit using active transportation, and oppose sustainable transportation out of perceived self-interest. However, the data are clear: active transportation users outspend car drivers, multimodal investment grows the economy more, and public transportation creates more jobs than roads.