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

101–110 of 713 posts

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

#101

Post by pdonis »

bluGill wrote: post #14
psunavy03 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Most people in the US live in an urban area, where urban solutions work. Only a small minority live in a rural area, though many living in suburbs like to pretend they are in a rural area.

> many living in suburbs like to pretend they are in a rural area

Suburbs are not rural, but they're not urban either. The population density in most suburbs is too low to support the kind of walk-everywhere infrastructure that a true high density urban area can (and should) provide.

The real issue is that many people fail to realize that there is no problem with that. Having different areas for people to live with vastly different population densities, and different solutions for how people get around, is a feature, not a bug. People have very different preferences, and urban, suburban, and rural areas exist so that people's very different preferences for how they want to live can all be accommodated.

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

#102

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

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.

Can't upvote this enough. In Austin, with us on track to break the record of 100+ degree consecutive days, there is a huge difference between walking along nice, shaded areas and barren sidewalks. The trees don't even need to be that "mature" - I've seen new developments plant grown trees that only take a couple years to really expand.

Like the blog post and other commenters mentioned, it's not just trees alone but especially in hotter climates it can make all the difference.

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

#103

Post by Justsignedup »

I have to agree with a lot in this article: I just walked down a street in staten island... very narrow, just enough for me and nobody next to me. Many spots just push you onto the road by trees and signs. Winding. And many spots with no shade so it is unpleasant in the summer.

But walking is just one aspect of the equation. You need public transportation to be convenient, fast, and reliable. Without that, when I need to go more than a few steps away, I will drive.

That's the point. There are very complex challenges, but the only real fix is a massively efficient transportation system combined with pedestrian areas, to encourage everyone capable to prefer that over driving.

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

#104

Post by b112 »

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.

Love how south-centric this statement is. In Northern countries, that's true for a month typically, otherwise "oh god please I hope the sun will shine on me".

In December, I see 4 hours of sun, where the light gets above tree tops. And that's in Southern Canada!

Not a hatred of trees, but a dislike of shade trees.

edit: until I visited Texas, I never understood why people wore hats. The sun is never hot enough here for it. It never gets as high in the sky. Yet it's a brutal beast in Texas. I can only imagine further south..

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

#105

Post by ClumsyPilot »

gruez wrote: post #16
closeparen wrote: post #3

This lens is underutilized in the discourse, but people feel it acutely. Even a lot of the anti-cycling stance comes down to, “What am I, poor?” When you are using transportation infrastructure that’s designed with contempt for you, you know, and you don’t want to be there. See also: rail slow zones, buses that shimmy and rattle violently on imperfect pavement, how Muni trains close their doors and pull one foot out…

>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?".

> inflammatory way to say "people are willing to pay for a more pleasant experience"

You got it all wrong! It does noy matter how the expience feels physically.

The problem is social stigma attached to cycling.

Like tell you mates you spent 3 weeks fixing your car, or built your own house, and it was super u pleasant and you broke your hand in the process - you are cool.

But tell them you cycled to work to improvr fitness, and you are a weirdo.

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

#106

Post by degrews »

I moved from Spain to the US, and I often find myself trying to explain to people back home just how miserable and even humiliating the pedestrian experience is here.

Here are some other examples of things that I think contribute to the hostile walking experience in the US:

* Cars parked in short driveways often extend all the way across the sidewalk. Even if you can easily step off onto the road to walk around them (not all pedestrians can), it just feels like a slap in the face to have to do that.

* Cars have much higher and stronger headlights, with the high beams often left on, and drivers are generally much less mindful of them. As a pedestrian walking at night on under-lit streets, you are constantly getting blinded.

* Tinted windows (even the mild level of tint that most cars in the US have). The whole experience of being a lone vulnerable pedestrian among a sea of cars is made even worse when you can't see the people in the cars (but you know they can see you).

* Often the only option to get food late at night are fast food places, which become drive-thru only after a certain time. Having to go through the drive-thru on foot is obviously a terrible experience, and they will often refuse to even serve you.

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

#107

Post by justajot »

pharmakom wrote: post #52
psunavy03 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Yes, and the highway system was originally intended as defense infrastructure to more easily move equipment across the country. A great idea, but a design that was not originally intended to plow right through cities. This has been a big contributor to the mess that we are in when it comes to urban / suburban design and the extreme lack of walkability.

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

#108

Post by JoshTriplett »

jeffrallen wrote: post #80

I liked lots of this, but I really disagree with the night shot. What about the dignity of the people living along the bright (overly) lighted sidewalk, who lose their dark skies and dark bedrooms? Street lights suck, and should be absolutely minimized, and turned off at 22h. If you feel intimidated by the dark, you can solve that for yourself: don't shine your fears into my windows.

Agreed. I wish there were a standard practice of turning off streetlights between certain hours, to reduce light pollution.

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

#109

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

wnc3141 wrote: post #96

I think what's being noticed here, as in many urbanist conversations, is that our urban conditions are primarily reflective of the vastly unequal socio-economic structure we have at large. In places where the working poor are the most disadvantaged, there also tends to be the highest auto dependency. (Think American South, Panama City, Panama etc) To Soap box for a moment, almost all of our problems are reflective of…

Don't agree with this at all.

On one hand, it's kind of a tautology - sure, if you're in a city that is very car-dependent, it's a disadvantage to the working poor because owning a car costs money.

But in the US there are also (usually older) cities with relatively great public transportation that are more walkable that also have enormous amounts of wealth inequality.

Doesn't really have anything to do with inequality, in the US at least it's mostly just reflective of when cities were built and developed. Pre-WWII cities like NYC and Boston have (again, relatively) great public transit options and huge walkable parts, while newer cities (often in the South) developed around the car.

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

#110

Post by pbhjpbhj »

OfSanguineFire wrote: post #92
PaulHoule wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is this story that nobody takes the bus in L.A. but when I go there and ride the bus the bus is always full. It is not bad at all to ride the bus from Beverly Hills to Hollywood but the bus does not stop at Rodeo Drive, you have to pick it up on the next street over.

Surprised to hear the bus is always full. I took the Metrolink train from Union Station to San Bernardino recently, during an hour when people ought to be going home from work, and it was spookily empty. The one single other passenger in sight told me it was usually so empty. I thought of how crazy it was to offer this huge rail infrastructure - which really did seem cheap and convenient - for so few people to use.

You have to provide public transport infrastructure _first_ if you want people to use it. You can't get rid of your car in the hope that 8 months down the line you can get a train; unless your boss is happy for you not physically attending work for 8 months, at least.
Post reply on HN