Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

streets.mn

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 713 posts

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#51

Post by mc32 »

Guvante wrote: post #38
voisin wrote: post #9

If we want a shift to walking, we need cities to plant around 100x the number of trees they have. Ever walk through an old, mature neighbourhood? Usually there are tons of people on the sidewalks, and a primary reason is that there are mature trees providing plenty of shade. Then try walking in a new neighbourhood with barely any shade. It is awful.

We had trees, they ripped them out in the name of safety. "A drink driver might swerve off the road" killed so many old growth trees in the US.

It wasn’t one reason. Some of it came down to liability (buckling sidewalks, falling limbs in storms, pruning), public safety (baddies can hide under trees and away from choppers before FLiR), impact on utilities (100+ years ago maybe there was a sewer line and maybe a water line, but not much else in most places).

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#52

Post by pharmakom »

psunavy03 wrote: post #6
paulcole wrote: post #4

The thing is we (as an American society) really don’t want a shift to walking. We like the idea of walking more but won’t actually do it. Instead we’ll make up a million excuses about why we just can’t walk. I say this as someone who at 40 years old has never learned to drive and who has walked/bicycled/taken the bus virtually everywhere I’ve needed to go. And I’ve lived in very rural and very suburban areas, as well…

> I say this as someone who at 40 years old has never learned to drive and who has walked/bicycled/taken the bus virtually everywhere I’ve needed to go. I say this with no mockery or disrespect, just description . . . you are not normal. I mean in a statistical sense. Not only are you part of (maybe the last) generation who salivated over the thought of getting a driver's license at 16 and getting away from Mom and D…

> Urban solutions do not always work across a country as vast, huge, and diverse as the US.

US is a huge country, but people aren’t travelling across it on a regular basis.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#53

Post by mikenew »

arrowsmith wrote: post #29
mikenew wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has not been my experience. I'm lucky to live in a very walkable part of a very walkable city, and almost every time someone comes to visit I find they've disappeared within 24 hours to "explore the area". These are people who virtually never walk anywhere unless they have to, but you put them in the right environment and they almost can't help it.

When I'm in a new city I love to go for an aimless walk with no destination in mind just to get lost, get a feel for the place and see what I discover. Then I visited the US and quickly realised that this is a terrible idea in pretty much any American city.

There are a few exceptions but yeah, it's bad. I remember visiting Houston and asking the hotel receptionist which way to walk to get to some restaurants a half mile away, and it was clear that no one had ever asked that before. And sure enough it was a terrible experience.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#54

Post by adra »

goda90 wrote: post #36
gruez wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Even a lot of the anti-cycling stance comes down to, “What am I, poor?” I agree with the overall point that people don't want to cycle because the experience sucks, but your description feels like an unnecessarily inflammatory way to say "people are willing to pay for a more pleasant experience". Nobody says "a lot of the anti-cheap laptop stance comes down to, "what am I, poor?".

I have literally seen people scoff at biking or riding the bus as something for poor people. It is a common sentiment.

This is a hyper regional statement. Where I live, you'd be considered a weirdo for carrying that sentiment. Drive an hour away, and the statement could be considered a lot of credence. All we can do is make the right choices for ourselves and help influence those in our spheres to encourage the behaviour we want to see.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#55

Post by ericmay »

voisin wrote: post #9

If we want a shift to walking, we need cities to plant around 100x the number of trees they have. Ever walk through an old, mature neighbourhood? Usually there are tons of people on the sidewalks, and a primary reason is that there are mature trees providing plenty of shade. Then try walking in a new neighbourhood with barely any shade. It is awful.

> Then try walking in a new neighbourhood with barely any shade. It is awful.

Neighborhoods you’d typically want to walk in do have shade because they were all built a long time ago and there is somewhere for you to walk to. Suburban neighborhoods aren’t designed that way which is why even if there was shade there’s still nowhere to walk to.

I do agree we need more trees planted and more shade. Unfortunately a lot of space near and around places people would want to walk or bike to us instead covered in pavement for cars and parking.

We can do more than one thing at once though. We can make areas more walkable while we also plant trees. And we can flip state highway departments [1] so that they focus on serving the people and their needs instead of themselves or a small, vocal minority.

[1] Note that departments of transportation in nearly all states are highway and road transit departments first and do next to nothing w.r.t better means of transportation. Their entire context is cars and drivers and you can confirm this by looking at the budget.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#56

Post by orangecat »

snovymgodym wrote: post #30
skrebbel wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain this to me? For example, my local supermarket is a 8 minute walk from my house. Driving there would take about 5 minutes, due to one way streets etc, so including the hassle of parking etc it takes about as long. Driving there seems positively insane to me, except if I’m shopping for a party or something and need to fill the trunk. Are you saying that Americans would choose the car here? Or that in Am…

It's highly situational, but speaking broadly the US usually it's a "5 minute drive vs a 25 minute walk" situation. But even if you live 5-10 minutes from the supermarket many people will still drive because everything is designed around people driving. For example, it's very common to lack sidewalks and even when there are sidewalks, protected crossings can be sparse. So a 10 minute walk to the store can involve you…

The size of packaging and the quantities that people normally buy in are based on the idea that Americans take their car to the grocery store once a week and fill their trunk space with groceries.

Yes. My grocery store often has sales where you have to buy 5 of a large and/or heavy product to get the discount. As a pedestrian I have to either forego the savings or have an awkward trip home.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#57

Post by grzm »

orangecat wrote: post #56
snovymgodym wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's highly situational, but speaking broadly the US usually it's a "5 minute drive vs a 25 minute walk" situation. But even if you live 5-10 minutes from the supermarket many people will still drive because everything is designed around people driving. For example, it's very common to lack sidewalks and even when there are sidewalks, protected crossings can be sparse. So a 10 minute walk to the store can involve you…

The size of packaging and the quantities that people normally buy in are based on the idea that Americans take their car to the grocery store once a week and fill their trunk space with groceries. Yes. My grocery store often has sales where you have to buy 5 of a large and/or heavy product to get the discount. As a pedestrian I have to either forego the savings or have an awkward trip home.

In some countries it’s more common to have items delivered, which can work in cases like this.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#58

Post by xtracto »

goda90 wrote: post #36
gruez wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Even a lot of the anti-cycling stance comes down to, “What am I, poor?” I agree with the overall point that people don't want to cycle because the experience sucks, but your description feels like an unnecessarily inflammatory way to say "people are willing to pay for a more pleasant experience". Nobody says "a lot of the anti-cheap laptop stance comes down to, "what am I, poor?".

I have literally seen people scoff at biking or riding the bus as something for poor people. It is a common sentiment.

Anecdote time. Ten years ago I (Mexican, living in Mexico, a bit "white-er" than the average Mexican skin color) worked for a Silicon Valley startup with HQs in Mountain View. One time I was visiting said HQ, I met several people, I got to talk with one of them (Chinese/Asiatic looking woman) about how I was moving while I was there, and where was I staying (she didn't know where I was from).

At some point I told her that I hadn't rented a car, so I was basically walking. And because I wanted to go to some outlet, I was thinking on taking the bus. Her comment was: "Don't take the bus, that's for Mexicans!", I had to swallow my surprise and keep a poker face, just answering something along the lines of "ooh yeah? thanks for the advice".

I guess the stigma that only poor people (And we Mexicans are poor you know haha) take the bus is pretty alive in some parts of the US.

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#59

Post by [deleted] »

arrowsmith wrote: post #29
mikenew wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has not been my experience. I'm lucky to live in a very walkable part of a very walkable city, and almost every time someone comes to visit I find they've disappeared within 24 hours to "explore the area". These are people who virtually never walk anywhere unless they have to, but you put them in the right environment and they almost can't help it.

When I'm in a new city I love to go for an aimless walk with no destination in mind just to get lost, get a feel for the place and see what I discover. Then I visited the US and quickly realised that this is a terrible idea in pretty much any American city.

[deleted]

Re: If we want a shift to walking we need to prioritize dignity

#60

Post by gruez »

Guvante wrote: post #33
gruez wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Even a lot of the anti-cycling stance comes down to, “What am I, poor?” I agree with the overall point that people don't want to cycle because the experience sucks, but your description feels like an unnecessarily inflammatory way to say "people are willing to pay for a more pleasant experience". Nobody says "a lot of the anti-cheap laptop stance comes down to, "what am I, poor?".

Nothing about the post you responded to says "people are willing to pay for a more pleasant experience". The closest is "people aren't willing to pay to improve an unpleasant experience" which isn't related to purchasing a laptop in anyway.

> Nothing about the post you responded to says "people are willing to pay for a more pleasant experience".

Are we reading the same post here? The one I'm seeing lists out all the reasons why cycling/public transport sucks, all of which can be avoided if you pay several hundred dollars per month for a car.

Post reply on HN