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

381–390 of 713 posts

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

#381

Post by toddmorey »

degrews wrote: post #106

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…

Adding even MORE to the insult is this part from the article: "many agencies will simply remove pedestrian facilities to reduce the cost of compliance". I see that so often: having to cross the damn intersection three times just to continue across, and all the light timings favor cars. It's a big middle finger.

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

#382

Post by sndknd »

vivalasvega wrote: post #368
Kye wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt cops like pulling people they can't see over. They could be shot dead and never see the gun.

Perhaps, then, those officers could get safer jobs doing something else, if they are unable to perform their duties. Or perhaps it could be harder to drive around freely with and conceal a deadly weapon. We have a lot of options other than "just let people break the law, I guess".

Nope. “Let people break the law” is the new standard.

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

#383

Post by vivalasvega »

cscurmudgeon wrote: post #262
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…

Ah, let us look at the data. In reality, only rich (and white) folks can afford to live in areas that are not car-dependent. https://granfondodailynews.com/2020/01/17/is-north-american-... > From 2001 to 2017 the number of people cycling increased the fastest among high income, highly educated, employed, white men between the ages 25 and 44.

All that means is that pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods are in demand, which is great! What if we built more and more of them?

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

#384

Post by pdonis »

fnimick wrote: post #283
pdonis wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you read the link you would realize that property taxes don't even cover 25% of the ongoing maintenance cost. I don't see this anywhere in the article.

It's there, but here's more evidence and data to back up the assertion that suburbs are a net drain on city finances, with more cost than tax revenue from properties: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2018/4/16/where-did-the-...

This article isn't saying suburbs are a drain on cities. It's saying that cities have overextended themselves because of skewed incentives imposed on them by government policies (the main one being printing money to fund real estate development). The solution to that is not to abolish suburbs. It's for the government to stop imposing skewed incentives.

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

#385

Post by msla »

tvaughan wrote: post #258
degrews wrote: post #106

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…

> I often find myself trying to explain to people back home just how miserable and even humiliating the pedestrian experience is here. Same. I’ve lived in Los Ángeles and Amsterdam, and it is impossible to explain to my friends and family just how awful the quality of life is in LA precisely because of the difference in attitudes and priorities over cars. Perhaps some have “nicer” (aka bigger) houses in LA than they…

> Los Ángeles

Why the accent? Is it not the one in California?

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

#386

Post by vivalasvega »

Aerbil313 wrote: post #230
causality0 wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's so strange because it isn't that people are flooding into cities and bringing their car fixation with them. As a rural/suburban person, nobody I know from here drives when they're traveling in a city because the driving experience is so miserably bad compared to driving in the country. It's the city people who think moving five feet every thirty seconds and bathing in an ocean of car horn noises is somehow compa…

> It's the city people who think moving five feet every thirty seconds and bathing in an ocean of car horn noises is somehow compatible with human life. Some even manage to enjoy it. I did not believe anyone actually wanted, let alone enjoyed the misery of modernity until I experienced one such person firsthand. It blowed my mind, I was in shock for a straight day. The guy genuinely "liked" the new Transformers movie…

Respectfully, who made you the arbiter of taste? Are people not allowed to like movies and foods and environments that you don't? Isn't it great that the world has something for everyone?

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

#387

Post by brightlancer »

NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #254
barney54 wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One problem in the United States is that transportation planners apparently think that buses are for the poor and people won’t ride them. Instead they want to build expensive light rail or subway when a good bus system would be much better, flexible, and affordable.

There is another reason for building rail systems. The routes are fixed. It is easy to change a bus route by moving the stops around and issuing a new map. It is, as you say, expensive to change a rail route. Because rail routes are fixed, that means that developers can count on their longevity, and therefore they develop real estate to match it. A rail line can greatly gentrify the neighborhoods it runs through, giv…

That flexibility is also a reason for building bus routes: they can be re-routed as needed due to construction or changing rider patterns, buses can be replaced (improved) without having to retrofit the entire system, new ones can be added where needed, old ones can be removed where not, etc.

Central planners might like the idea that they can choose which neighborhoods will succeed, but count me among those who think they can F themselves.

Buses work. They're cheaper than every kind of rail. They're more flexible. But planners and meddlers want control.

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

#388

Post by closeparen »

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.

One of the fundamental axioms of traffic engineering is you can't have trees too close to the edge of the road, because drunk/speeding drivers might get hurt. It is not just that the neighborhoods are mature enough for trees to have grown in, it's that they predate this science.

https://highways.dot.gov/safety/rwd/provide-safe-recovery/cl...

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

#390

Post by pdonis »

fnimick wrote: post #365
pdonis wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Except for price, because a lot of people want to live in dense areas. And the way to fix that is for urban areas to allow for more construction of living space. Which, historically, urban areas are very bad at doing, for example by restricting the maximum height of buildings. But how is that the suburbs' fault? > Why exactly do you think you should have a say over how other people live? I have said no such thing.…

You have explicitly said other people in your suburb should not be able to build dense housing on their property. Why? And if there are many people who want urban areas and not enough housing to accommodate, would you support expanding them, or is this an attack on your preferences?

> You have explicitly said other people in your suburb should not be able to build dense housing on their property.

I have said no such thing. I have said that in a suburb, most people won't want to do that. But that doesn't mean nobody will. In every suburb I've lived in, there has been a mix of single family homes, townhomes, and apartments. Some suburbs are even evolving to the point where they have a core area that is basically urban, with almost all buildings being high rise. I have already said that such things are to be expected over time.

> if there are many people who want urban areas and not enough housing to accommodate, would you support expanding them

If the urban area is already fully built out, and it acquires the additional land legally on the open market, sure.

But much so-called "urban" area is nowhere near fully built out. For example, much of the city of San Francisco is still fairly low density, with little or no high rise and many lots still being single family homes, and is kept that way by restrictive zoning, even though there are multitudes of people clamoring to live there. Before expanding the city out into the suburbs, I would say the city should first allow more people to live in the land that is already part of the city, and adjust its zoning to make that possible.

Post reply on HN