What? A neighborhood sited on the side of a hill and bisected by a major highway is less walkable than one entirely on relatively flat ground? Shocker. They might as well have compared the walkability of Ballard vs. the Pasayten Wilderness. Also, scalable .jpg fail. This isn't 1999 any more.
I have always felt it should be illegal to develop land with out platting a grid. The suburban model of endless culs-de-sac is an absurd, illogical construct. Forget walking, one can't even drive through a neighborhood based on dead end roads. It's asinine.
I'm not gonna buy that it's the presence or absence of cul-de-sacs in a neighborhood that is a deciding factor on transit use/driving habits without seeing the transit AVAILABLE in each area. I live in Maltby - a.k.a. transit no-man's-land - which is very close to Woodinville, and I would be very surprised if there are as many bus stops and routes available in the Woodinville neighborhood they cite as there are in the Ballard one.