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

561–570 of 713 posts

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

#561

Post by sershe »

esoterica wrote: post #558
sershe wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The cause and effect might be reversed. 1) Most people prefer to drive... look at any country that is getting richer - people want to buy cars. 2) It is only when people cannot afford to drive or driving is too inconvenient (traffic, or narrow streets/lack of parking in Europe, or outright restrictions ), they will use alternative modes of transportation. 3) The more people are thus inconvenienced, the more public su…

> Most people prefer to drive > It is only when people cannot afford to drive or driving is too inconvenient (traffic, or narrow streets/lack of parking in Europe, or outright restrictions ), they will use alternative modes of transportation. This is literally a tautology. "People find driving more convenient, except when driving is less convenient". > But don't argue that people want to live in urban paradise and so…

It's not. First, there's the "afford" bit, that is the key. And second obviously it's a tradeoff based on infrastructure available, but my point is unless you outright restrict it, everywhere in the world people will fill up as much driving/parking capacity as available, then a bit more, and only then consider other options. Hence gridlock and expensive/scarce/both parking in all of the "big cities".

That is not true for biking or transit - nowhere in the world, that I'm aware of, do people clog the bike lanes or trains until they are barely usable, then switch grudgingly to other modes of transportation.

People in big cities still drive. I mean, LA discussed here is a big car-centric city, why does this have to be about living in the sticks?

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

#562

Post by lelanthran »

danny_codes wrote: post #139
lelanthran wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you get toddlers to daycare, preteens to soccer practice, etc.

Well in a well-designed city, you could just walk to all those things. From my house in Berkeley, CA, daycare is about 400 meters from my house. There are two fields of soccer-ing size, one about 10 minutes away and one 25 minutes by foot. The grocery store is a 4 minute walk, my hairdresser is a 1 minute walk, CVS is a 3 minute walk. I also have an amazing park with play structures, basketball courts, tennis courts,…

> Well in a well-designed city, you could just walk to all those things.

You may call it well-designed, but I think that all those close amenities you are enjoying is a side-effect of high-density living for high-income people.

After all, no matter how well you design a place, that (for example) hairdresser still needs enough people who can afford the service to live within walking distance so that it can turn a profit.

I think it's less a case of "How do we design this city so that everything is no more than a 25m walk away?" and more a case of "High density population with lots of money attracts businesses to the area".

> There's nothing special about where I live except that it's development predates the automobile.

That's true for most places.

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

#563

Post by axpy »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #360
fnimick wrote: post #318

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a conversation recently with someone lamenting that we didn't have roads like LA here in Boston. Saying their ideal road was 3 lanes, plus a bike lane, plus a bus lane in each direction. Imagine being a pedestrian trying to cross that! I really don't understand someone who looks at that traffic disaster and wants to build the same thing here at home.

I feel like the more modes of transportation you mix together the worse the cognitive load on people. And it get rapidly worse the higher the density. Inside of a mall where there are only pedestrians is very safe. Freeways are fairly safe. Protected bike lanes are safe. Light rail is safe. Mix all of those on a strode, rail, buses, trucks, cars, bicycles, pedestrians, not safe.

This seems pretty counter intuitive but this is often the other way around. The safest streets in Europe are where cars, bikes and pedestrian mix together. It force focus on the driving task instead of doing something else. If you are interested, Freakonomics have an episode: "Why the U.S. so good at killing pedestrian". It's an interesting discussion with no simple answer.

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

#564

Post by sdeframond »

kiratp wrote: post #304
sdeframond wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> flipping off the drivers if they honked Honking within urban areas is forbidden unless used to prevent immediate danger (well, in France anyway). Honking for "educational purpose", ie to yell at someone, is a major nuisance. Every honk annoys dozens of people around the driver, wakes up babies and so on. Friends, don't let friends honk inconsiderately.

This is not true in the US, at least in Washington state for example. Honking = speech https://law.justia.com/cases/washington/supreme-court/2011/8...

Are late night home parties with loud music also considered free speech or is it an illegal nuisance?

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

#565

Post by wnc3141 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #500
Fricken wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of adequate transportation has been cited as the biggest barrier to upward economic mobility https://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/07/upshot/transportation-eme...

That certainly makes sense, and I agree, but I interpreted the parent comment ("our urban conditions are primarily reflective of the vastly unequal socio-economic structure we have at large" and "In places where the working poor are the most disadvantaged, there also tends to be the highest auto dependency") as inequality being a cause of our poor transportation infrastructure, instead of our poor transportation infr…

I agree that I perhaps poorly framed my comment earlier. By reflective, I think I was really thinking of a cyclical relationship. Where lack of transportation compounds inequality, I also believe that inequality is at the very least, co cyclical with poor infrastructure due to a lower interest in collective investment in that infrastructure and greater private control in development.

An example of such would be Atlanta, where public transit investments have been sparse due to wealthier areas of the metro having little interest in funding transit. Many wealthier residents live suburban developments that are highly car dependent. As the article points with walking, many wealthier areas opt to avoid transit access, many residential areas do without sidewalks and follow a land use pattern that (effectively) cuts the neighborhood off from pedestrian access

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

#566

Post by wnc3141 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #162
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…

The problem is that the shining example of low-inequality urbanism (Western Europe) achieved this by having effectively the most exclusionary immigration policy in the West for two centuries. Europe may have great biking culture and equality, but they have effectively sacrificed pluralism.

This is a very interesting angle on a trade off that I (as an American) have not considered and be interested to read about.

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

#567

Post by sdeframond »

paradox460 wrote: post #357
fragmede wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's cultural. In India and other places in Asia, honking is just to say "hey, I'm here, did you see me?" and prevent an accident, but it happens so frequently that sitting in traffic is a cacaphony of honking at all times. In (my part of) the US, honking is to express displeasure at whatever it is the other driver did, and is infrequent. In other places, they might as well not install a horn, because it never gets u…

It's used much the same in NYC and some other than areas. A quick tap to say "hey I'm here and I'm doing something" like changing lanes or pulling out of traffic Aside: I really wish cars had two different horns. A nice little boop horn, to say "hey I'm here" or "lights green buddy" and then the big honking thing that says "you nearly hit me by rolling through that stop sign, pay better attention"

> I really wish cars had two different horn

I really wish cars didn't have horns. Or that horns would be louder inside than outside for drivers to "feel" it accordingly.

99% of the honks I hear are useless to prevent any incoming danger (too late, honking to say "hi", honking to express displeasure...)

I've used the horn once in the last 10 years, and I shouldn't have.

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

#568

Post by lionkor »

Moldoteck wrote: post #539
lionkor wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driving in Amsterdam sucks, parking costs you your leg per five minutes, bikes are very agressive, pedestrians fill the roads because there is more tourism than the city was designed for. Its one of the worst places in NL I've been, from a driving perspective.

That's the point. Maintaining car infra is expensive, so owning a car should be expensive and discouraged. That's why there using a car to get to a destination usually is much slower compared to a bike. Cars are still allowed for the people that either really need them or don't need them but are willing to pay extra But I agree that Utrecht is a better city bc of less tourists and even more bike infra

Of course, and I admire that, but its therefore not a good example of a city where cars, pedestrians and bikes coexist (because its not meant to be one)

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

#569

Post by tempaccount1234 »

sershe wrote: post #410
badtension wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Objectively we are still animals that need at least some movement. The environment described by the parent is hostile to our most basic needs.

I find I'd much rather drive to the mountains, or a lake, or at least a nice big park, and recreate there. Walking to a store in Amsterdam or Munich or Vancouver or Moscow was neither much fun nor a lot of exercise.

As a European who owns both a car and a bike, regularly driving somewhere just to do a bit of walking there feels like a complete waste of resources to me. I use my car for work related travel, at distances over 5 miles or to move heavy stuff. For anything else the default choice (which includes grocery shopping) is walking or biking. Amsterdam has great bike paths, I’d probably cycle even more there.

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

#570

Post by lrem »

cstejerean wrote: post #211
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…

The first one doesn't seem unique to the US. I just spent the last 2 months i Europe and on many side streets there is no place to safely stop a car which means pulling into the sidewalk is the only option. So I frequently had to step into the street to walk around a stopped delivery van or similar.

In most places that's illegal and they'd be risking a likely-too-low fine.
Post reply on HN