Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities • Hacker News Board

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#241

Post by mrgordon » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 9:04 AM UTC

nomel wrote: post #158

mrgordon wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lyft Line and Uber Pool were usually $4-5 around San Francisco before COVID and you can use electric bikes through the bike share for $15 for the entire month. Obviously it’s easier if you live near the walkable area, but it doesn’t need to be as expensive as you claim and SF is one of the more expensive cities.

> Lyft Line and Uber Pool were usually $4-5 Two way is $10. > you can use electric bikes through the bike share for $15 for the entire month That 20 minutes is back.

The thing you’re missing is that I spent much less than $100 a month in transit costs when I lived in SF. When you have a car there, you will spend probably $500-$1000 on the car, the insurance, the gas, parking meters, etc. Then you will likely need to pay for a parking spot. In the Mission the going rate before COVID was about $400+ a month. My friends who had cars and didn’t have dedicated parking would also get $75 parking or street cleaning tickets fairly often.

So I literally could take a $5 ride each way every time I didn’t feel like walking and I had a huge cost savings, much less hassle with parking and street cleaning at 6 AM, less environmental impact, no problems drinking and driving, etc. After a while, most people without dedicated parking end up leaving their car in the same spot as long as possible and mostly use it for weekend trips outside the city.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#242

Post by Fricken » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 9:05 AM UTC

newyankee wrote: post #185

titzer wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I moved to LA, I did the following calculation. Average number of cars per person, 2/3 x Number of people in greater LA area, 16M = 10M. 10M cars x average parking spot is 7ft x 15, 105 sq ft = 1 billion sq ft. 1 billion sq ft to square miles = 36 square miles. That's a square 6 miles on a side. Just to park the cars once . There is at least 3x that number of spots in the city. A hundred square miles of parking.…

Someone had calculated that the urban sprawl king city of Houston was 40% parking space or something

Houston leads the USA and, and I would assume the world in parking, with an estimated 30 parking spaces per resident.

Office parking lots in Houston during work hours are, on average, 30% empty.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#243

Post by mrgordon » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 9:08 AM UTC

adgjlsfhk1 wrote: post #190

mrgordon wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is that? You may have a different idea of walkable than the other poster. As soon as you have tons of parking spaces, mandatory setbacks, etc. you’ve taken much of the room away from pedestrians forcing them to walk much longer distances (often in bad weather) to get to where they want to go. That’s why the two are at such odds.

Then don't do that. You only need tons of parking and mandatory setbacks if you've designed the area for lots of cars going too fast. If you just don't, then suddenly a lot more ends up being in walking distance, and you don't need as much parking because more people are walking or biking.

Well of course this is what I prefer. But the other poster was saying they didn’t see why cities can’t be designed for cars AND for pedestrians. My point is that the policies put in place in almost all American cities for cars (mandatory parking requirements in new buildings, lots of street parking or parking lots, mandatory setbacks from the street for buildings, highway entrances, etc.) work directly against making a city dense enough to be able to easily walk to enough things that you don’t end up resorting to cars.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#244

Post by aix1 » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 9:10 AM UTC

CapricornNoble wrote: post #235

cbdumas wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's hard to find because those two preferences are in direct, irresolvable conflict.

Japan manages it pretty well. The mass transit system of Tokyo is well known. But the city is also zoned such that walking or biking from an apartment/house/hotel to a restaurant, supermarket, or even a major park or museum is easy and fairly safe. The roads are clean and well-maintained, and traffic really isn't that bad. Street parking is rarely allowed, but small parking lots are numerous albeit expensive. Biking…

> Biking and public transit moves most commuters off of the streets

Help me understand this. Where do cyclists and ground-level public transportation go if they're not on the streets?

> Then I quarantined in Tokyo for 2 weeks and everything was a convenient 5-minute walk away.

Wait a minute, quarantined and walked around?

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#245

Post by cheriot » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 9:11 AM UTC

whalabi wrote: post #233

graeme wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your thesis is flawed. It is illegal to build new dense walkable neighborhoods in almost all of north america. But existing neighbourhoods of that style tend to be both highly priced to live in and also popular tourist destinations, implying high desirability. The older east coat cities built walkable neighbourhoods before they became illegal.

Wait why is it illegal to build dense walkable neighbourhoods? Which laws?

At a high level:

1. Zoning prevents density, which precludes having enough foot traffic for neighborhood stores to exist (if zoning actually allow them).

2. Parking minimums force things farther apart because so much of each lot is asphalt.

3. Street design that prioritizes car speed over pedestrian safety.

In the end, it's not safe, pleasant, or practical to walk in suburbs built from the 70s on. These things are a patchwork of local and state law so specifics vary by area.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#246

Post by aix1 » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 9:14 AM UTC

dghlsakjg wrote: post #90

MarkLowenstein wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never run into a walkable city center where there was one super-obvious and convenient place to park--maybe a gigantic underground garage--and then you walk everywhere from there. Feels like that might work. The attractive city centers have nice stuff, but too few people who live within walking distance to keep them in business and in good shape. They need a way to bring in suburbanites and visitors to supplemen…

Amsterdam has big parking lots outside the city center. If you park there you get a free transit pass into the city I believe. Makes a lot of sense really

In Britain this is called Park & Ride (or P+R for short):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_and_ride

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#247

Post by imgabe » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 9:14 AM UTC

542458 wrote: post #98

graeme wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your thesis is flawed. It is illegal to build new dense walkable neighborhoods in almost all of north america. But existing neighbourhoods of that style tend to be both highly priced to live in and also popular tourist destinations, implying high desirability. The older east coat cities built walkable neighbourhoods before they became illegal.

They’re illegal because people vote for representatives who makes them illegal and show up to city council meetings to petition for them to be illegal. Existing areas in that style tend to be expensive, but are often (at least where I’ve lived) some of the most NYMBY areas in a city. They like the benefits their density has brought, but won’t tolerate the lot next to them getting one iota more dense.

The people who show up to city council meetings and pay attention to local politics are a tiny minority. It is not a stretch to believe that they do not represent what most people want.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#248

Post by aix1 » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 9:16 AM UTC

userbinator wrote: post #204

version_five wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's hardest to find, and what I prefer, is somewhere it's easy to walk and drive. I've lived in walkable places where if you do have to drive, traffic is a nightmare. And then of course there are places where you can drive without traffic but there is nowhere to walk to. I think I prefer the latter with my lifestyle, though it becomes more frustrating for meeting friends, going our for dinner + drinks, etc. For sp…

is somewhere it's easy to walk and drive This exhibit from 1940 might be interesting: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/59/Street_i...

Relevant: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/oct/02/walkways-in-t...

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#249

Post by aix1 » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 9:24 AM UTC

occz wrote: post #154

foxpurple wrote: post #2

I recently moved from a house in the suburbs in Australia to an apartment in the city. Got rid of my car and now I just walk to everything I need. I couldn’t be happier. Driving was such a huge stress on my life that is now gone. I can get anything I need within a 10 minute walk. The thing is it just doesn’t seem like the average person is willing to give up single family houses to gain walkability. For me, I would n…

>The thing is it just doesn’t seem like the average person is willing to give up single family houses to gain walkability. As other comments have mentioned, you can have both. In addition to that, the reason that people choose single family-houses is not necessarily entirely by preference: almost all of the land zoned for housing in the U.S is zoned for single family-homes. Add onto that some arcane rules about minim…

>> The thing is it just doesn’t seem like the average person is willing to give up single family houses to gain walkability.

> As other comments have mentioned, you can have both.

Absolutely. As an example, much of London offers both.

Re: Surveys show Americans want more walkable cities

#250

Post by mrgordon » Sat, Aug 07, 2021, 9:40 AM UTC

iammisc wrote: post #208

mrgordon wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where is that? You may have a different idea of walkable than the other poster. As soon as you have tons of parking spaces, mandatory setbacks, etc. you’ve taken much of the room away from pedestrians forcing them to walk much longer distances (often in bad weather) to get to where they want to go. That’s why the two are at such odds.

I live in Portland city limits but not downtown. Where I live was built as a suburb but the city grew into it. Actually Portland has a lot of these downtowney areas and they're surrounded by blocks and blocks of single family homes and small apartments But if you go farther out into newer developments, they just abandoned this lovely system and made awful cookie cutter burbs. Before this I lived in San Rafael and lar…

Portland is a pretty unique place. They famously drew a circle around the city and said development can’t go outside of that area which forced a certain density and allowed transit to be planned well in advance.

I didn’t spent a ton of time there and admittedly it was January so it was quite frigid, but the distances can still feel quite long between things outside of downtown. Portland made a few mistakes when they embraced car culture including getting rid of their street cars like many American cities. They also annexed a lot of less walkable areas around the city. There is no subway and the light rail seems well run but it doesn’t exactly cover the whole city. My sense is that most people who want to walk will end up biking or taking some form of transit in many neighborhoods because of the distances between things. In the winter it was quite hard to find lively streets and public squares to be quite honest. I suspect it’s because it’s easier to just drive when it’s cold, things are a bit far, etc.

Marin is lovely but most of it is extremely spread out. There are a few towns like you mentioned that one could conceivably get by without a car but it’s not easy. Looking at San Rafael, Google Maps shows 4th street is a walking area (denoted in beige) and a very small area a few blocks south near the Safeway around 1st and 2nd streets but it isn’t a very big area. Usually a giant chain supermarket is a pretty clear sign that things were designed for cars and not for pedestrians who would typically be better served by neighborhood markets and small shops near their house to grab some essentials. Zooming in near the walkable areas of San Rafael, Google Maps instantly highlights many car oriented businesses like at 2nd street and D street where we see a Chevron gas station, an Arco gas station, and an O’Reilly Auto Parts store all on one corner. I don’t know about you but even if it’s technically walkable that’s not what I want to walk through every day when I go outside especially if I need to walk past it to get to the train to commute to work, etc. A major highway cuts through the east side of the city which also limits expansion of pleasant walking areas and litters the area with on-ramps and other car-centric design.

Marin county famously blocked BART from expanding north in order to keep out the “riff-raff”. These sorts of decisions had major consequences and while you can find a few blocks here and there that are walkable, the county as a whole is largely long drives through tree covered asphalt in order to get between areas.

If you’re happy with a few blocks of downtown then admittedly some of the towns probably meet your needs but it’s not exactly designed for most people to live a car-free live. Even the Bank of America ATM there proudly shows on Google that it’s a drive-through ATM which I’ve never seen once in Europe (or San Francisco for that matter)